PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC. and PEDRO J. HABALUYAS, petitioners
vs.
JUDGE MAXIMO M. JAPZON ,Manila Regional Trial Court, Branch 36; SHUGO NODA & CO., LTD. and SHUYA NODA, Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

The issue in this case is whether the fifteen-day period within which a party may file a motion for reconsideration of a final order or ruling of the Regional Trial Court may be extended.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In Civil Case No. 82-3305 of the Manila Regional Trial Court, Shugo Noda & Co., Ltd., et al. vs. Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc., et al., the plaintiffs received on October 1, 1984 a copy of the order of September 3, 1984, denying their motion for execution of a judgment based on a compromise.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On October 16, the fifteenth day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an extension of twenty days within which to submit their motion for reconsideration (p. 41, Rollo).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On October 23, the plaintiffs filed their motion for new trial and their "notice of appeal (conditional)" (pp. 42 and 44, Rollo).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioners or defendants Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. and Pedro J. Habaluyas opposed the motion for extension of the time for filing a motion for reconsideration and they moved the dismiss the conditional appeal

Judge Maximo M. Japzon in his order of April 29, 198 granted the motion for new trial. That order is assailed in the instant petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial. The fifteen- day period for appealing or for filing motion for reconsideration cannot be extended Even under the existing Rules of Court the thirty-day period cannot be extended (Roque vs. Gunigundo, Adm. Case No. 1664, March 30 1978, 89 SCRA 178, 182; Gibbs vs. Court of First Instance Manila, 80 Phil. 160,164).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The Judiciary Revamp Law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, is designed to avoid the procedural delays which plagued the administration of justice under the Rules of Court which were originally intended to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive administration of justice. That is why (with some exceptions) the record on appeal was dispense with and the thirty-day period was reduced to fifteen days.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The questioned order is reversed and set aside. No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., Escolin, Cuevas and Alampay, * JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

* He was designated to sit in the Second Division.