ROBERT L. SINGH AND DOMINADOR DIZON, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, FOURTH SPECIAL CASES DIVISION, AND VICENTE G. SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.

In a suit for damages arising from a vehicular
accident filed by private respondent against petitioners before the Regional
Trial Court, Branch XXIII, at Roxas, Isabela, a summary judgment was rendered adverse to
petitioners.  Copy of the Decision was received by petitioners on
July 23, 1985. 
On August 6, 1985, or one day before the end of the reglementary period to appeal, petitioners filed a Motion
for Extension of Time within which to file a Motion for Reconsideration. 
The Trial Court denied the Motion on the ground that the period within
which to file a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. 
That ruling was affirmed by respondent Appellate Court on January 8,
1986, following the original Habaluyas
vs. Judge Japzon case promulgated by this Court on August 5, 1985 (138 SCRA
46), where it was held that “the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing
a motion for reconsideration cannot be extended”.

Subsequently, however, or on May 30, 1986, in the same entitled case (142 SCRA 208),
this Court restated and clarified the rule 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.”

In other words, there is a one-month grace period
from the promulgation on May 30, 1986 of this Court’s Resolution in the clarificatory Habaluyas
case, or up to June 30, 1986, within which the rule barring extensions of time
to file motions for new trial or reconsideration is, as yet, not strictly
enforceable (Bayaca vs. IAC, G. R.
No. 74824, September 15, 1986).

Since petitioners herein filed their Motion for Extension on
August 6, 1985, it was still
within the grace period, which expired on June 30, 1986, and may still be allowed.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is granted; the Appellate Court’s
Decision of January 8, 1986
is SET ASIDE, and this case is hereby remanded to the Regional Trial Court,
Branch XXIII, Roxas, Isabela, which is hereby directed to grant the extension of
time requested by petitioners for the filing of the Motion for Reconsideration,
and to resolve the same.

SO
ORDERED.

Yap, (Chairman), Narvasa, Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.