G.R. No.

70895 May 30, 1986

HABALUYAS ENTERPRISES, INC. and PEDRO HABALUYAS, petitioners,

Norberto J. Quisumbing for respondents.

RESOLUTION

FERIA, J.:

Respondents have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the Second Division of the Court promulgated on
August 5, 1985 which granted the petition for certiorari and prohibition and set aside the order of respondent Judge
granting private respondents' motion for new trial.

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.

Section 39 of The Judiciary Reorganization Act, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, reduced the period for appeal from final orders
or judgments of the Regional Trial Courts (formerly Courts of First Instance) from thirty (30) to fifteen (15) days and
provides a uniform period of fifteen days for appeal from final orders, resolutions, awards, judgments, or decisions of
any court counted from notice thereof, except in habeas corpus cases where the period for appeal remains at forty-
eight (48) hours. To expedite appeals, only a notice of appeal is required and a record on appeal is no longer required
except in appeals in special proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and in other cases wherein multiple
appeals are allowed. Section 19 of the Interim Rules provides that in these exceptional cases, the period for appeal is
thirty (30) days since a record on appeal is required. Moreover Section 18 of the Interim Rules provides that no appeal
bond shall be required for an appeal, and Section 4 thereof disallows a second motion for reconsideration of a final
order or judgment.

All these amendments are designed, as the decision sought to be reconsidered rightly states, to avoid the procedural
delays which plagued the administration of justice under the Rules of Court which are intended to assist the parties in
obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive administration of justice.

However, the law and the Rules of Court do not expressly prohibit the filing of a motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration of a final order or judgment.

In the case of Gibbs vs. Court, of First Instance (80 Phil. 160), the Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and ruled
that the failure of defendant's attorney to file the petition to set aside the judgment within the reglementary period was
due to excusable neglect, and, consequently, the record on appeal was allowed. The Court did not rule that the motion
for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration could not be granted.

In the case of Roque vs. Gunigundo (Administrative Case No. 1684, March 30, 1979, 89 SCRA 178), a division of the Court
cited the Gibbs decision to support a statement that a motion to extend the reglementary period for filing the motion
for reconsideration is not authorized or is not in order.

The Intermediate Appellate Court is sharply divided on this issue. Appeals have been dismissed on the basis of the
original decision in this case.
After considering the able arguments of counsels for petitioners and respondents, the Court resolved that the interest of
justice would be better served if the ruling in the original decision were applied prospectively from the time herein
stated. The reason is that it would be unfair to deprive parties of their right to appeal simply because they availed
themselves of a procedure which was not expressly prohibited or allowed by the law or the Rules. On the other hand, a
motion for new trial or reconsideration is not a pre-requisite to an appeal, a petition for review or a petition for review
on certiorari, and since the purpose of the amendments above referred to is to expedite the final disposition of cases, a
strict but prospective application of the said ruling is in order. Hence, for the guidance of Bench and Bar, the Court
restates and clarifies the rules on this point, as follows:

1.) Beginning one month after the promulgation of this Resolution, the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for
extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial
Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases
pending with the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the
extension requested.

2.) In appeals in special proceedings under Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and in other cases wherein multiple appeals
are allowed, a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal may be filed within the reglementary period of
thirty (30) days. (Moya vs. Barton, 76 Phil. 831; Heirs of Nantes vs. Court of Appeals, July 25, 1983, 123 SCRA 753.) If the
court denies the motion for extension, the appeal must be taken within the original period (Bello vs. Fernando, January
30, 1962, 4 SCRA 135), inasmuch as such a motion does not suspend the period for appeal (Reyes vs. Sta. Maria,
November 20, 1972, 48 SCRA 1). The trial court may grant said motion after the expiration of the period for appeal
provided it was filed within the original period. (Valero vs. Court of Appeals, June 28, 1973, 51 SCRA 467; Berkenkotter
vs. Court of Appeals, September 28, 1973, 53 SCRA 228).

All appeals heretofore timely taken, after extensions of time were granted for the filing of a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, shall be allowed and determined on the merits.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of, and to set aside, the decision of August 5, 1985 is granted and the
petition is dismissed. No costs.

AQUINO, J.:
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.
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.
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).
On October 23, the plaintiffs filed their motion for new trial and their “notice of appeal (conditional)” (pp. 42
and 44, Rollo).
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 to dismiss the conditional
appeal.
Judge Maximo M. Japzon in his order of April 29, 1985 granted the motion for new trial. That order is
assailed in the instant petition.
We hold that the trial court erred in granting the motion for new trial. The fifteen-day period for appealing
or for filing a 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 of Manila, 80 Phil. 160, 164).
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 dispensed with and the thirty-day period was reduced to fifteen
days.
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The questioned order is reversed and set aside. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. vs Japzon

138 SCRA 46 – Civil Procedure – No Extension To File Motion For Reconsideration

Shugo Noda and Co, Ltd. filed a civil case against Habaluyas Enterprises before the sala of Judge Maximo Japzon. The
trial court eventually ruled adversely against Shugo Noda and a copy of said decision was received by Shugo Noda on
October 1, 1984. On October 16, 1984, the last day for filing a motion for reconsideration, Shugo Noda filed a motion for
extension to file MFR. Judge Japzon granted said motion.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Japzon is correct in granting the motion for extension.

HELD: No. The fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. This is to
avoid procedural delays. This is an aim of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 – to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and
inexpensive administration of justice. This is also why the original 30 day period to file a motion for reconsideration was
reduced to 15 days.

NOTE: Supreme Court clarified that the rule shall be strictly enforced that no motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration may be filed with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts, the Regional Trial Courts, and
the Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a motion may be filed only in cases pending with the Supreme Court as the court
of last resort, which may in its sound discretion either grant or deny the extension requested.