Issue Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion

Issue whether or not the court of appeals committed

This preview shows page 28 - 30 out of 46 pages.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the denied the motion and let the petitioner be bound by the negligence of their counsel Held: The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. In the instant case, petitioners' motion for extension of time was more than a year after the expiration of the grace period. Hence, it is no longer within the coverage of the grace period. Considering the length of time from the expiration of the grace period to the promulgation of the decision of the Court of Appeals on August 25, 1987, petitioners cannot seek refuge in the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglamentary period. 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.
Image of page 28
ZUALO vs CFI of CEBU Zualo vs. CFI of Cebu, CA-G.R. No. 27718-R, July 7, 1961 Attorneys should familiarize themselves with the rules and comply with their requirements. They also are chargeable with notice of changes in the rules which have been held as including not only express reglementary provisions but also a regular practice under the Rules of Court. COLLANTES vs RENOMERON Facts: This complaint for disbarment is relative to the administrative case filed by Atty. Collantes, house counsel for V& G Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regard to the application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision. Although V&G complied with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of the documents with certain “special conditions” between them, which was that V&G should provide him with weekly round trip ticket from Tacloban to Manila plus P2,000.00 as pocket money per trip, or, in lieu thereof, the sale of respondent’s Quezon City house and lot by V&G or GSIS representatives. Eventually, respondent formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the question on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents. Despite the resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still refused the registration thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional requirements not adverted in his previous denial.
Image of page 29
Image of page 30

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 46 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture