Legal Ethics

Felisa De Roy vs Court of Appeals et al

Can't share this digest on Facebook? Here's why.

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. L-80718 – 157 SCRA 757 – Legal Ethics – Lawyer’s Duty – Keep Abreast of Latest Jurisprudence 

De Roy was the owner of a burnt building. The firewall of said building collapsed on the house of Luis Bernal thereby killing his daughter. Bernal sued De Roy. Bernal won in the trial court. Eventually, De Roy appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. De Roy received a copy of the decision on August 25, 1987. Under the Rules, they have 15 days to file a motion for reconsideration.

On September 9, 1987, the last day for them to file said MFR, De Roy’s counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled that pursuant to the case of Habaluyas Enterprises vs Japzon (August 1985), the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended.

De Roy assailed the denial as she alleged that her counsel was ignorant of the rule laid down in the Habaluyas Case; that said rule should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette.

ISSUE: Whether or not De Roy’s contention is correct.

HELD: No. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G.R.s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.

Read full text

Read another version of the digest here: Publication of laws vs Publication of Supreme Court decisions

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply