Roy v. CA (Case Digest) G.R. No. 80718

Roy v. CA
G.R. No. 80718
January 29, 1988

FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRGILIO RAMOS, petitioners,
vs.
CO URT OF APPEALS and LUIS BERNAL, SR., GLENIA BERNAL, LUIS BERNAL, JR., HEIRS OF MARISSA BERNAL, namely, GLICERIA DELA CRUZ BERNAL and LUIS BERNAL, SR., respondents.

Facts:
The petitioners owned a firewall that had weakened and collapsed on the tailoring shop owned by the private respondents, causing injuries and death to Marissa Bernal, a daughter. The RTC ruled that the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence and awarded damages to respondents. The petitioners appealed to the CA, but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC. A copy of the decision of the CA was received by the petitioners on August 25, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period to file an appeal, the petitioners asked the CA to extend the time to file a motion for reconsideration. According to a previous case, Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. Japzon, the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. The petitioners contend that the case of Habaluyas could not be made binding because it has not been published in the Official Gazette at the time the CA promulgated its decision.

Issue:
Is the ruling on an unpublished case binding?

Ruling:
Yes. There is no law requiring the publication of a Supreme Court decision for it to be binding and effective. The counsel of the petitioners should be responsible for keeping abreast with Supreme Court decisions as a lawyer.