Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GR 254067 2021
GR 254067 2021
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 01 February 2021 which reads as follows:
The CA did not en- in denying petitioner's motion for extension of time.
In Yutingco v. Court of Appeals, 3 this Court held that the circumstance of
heavy workload alone, absent a compelling or special reason, is not sufficient
justification to allow an extension of the petition, to wit:
(2)URES -more-
~11
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 254067
explain why he or she was unable to abide by the rules. 5 Here, the only reason
offered by petitioner for availing of the motion is her counsel's heavy
workload, which reason is neither compelling nor meritorious. Thus, the CA
correctly found petitioner's excuse to be unacceptable and utterly lame to
extend the period for filing the petition.
Anent petitioner's claim that she should not be held civilly liable
because she was merely a guarantor, this Court agrees with the findings of the
RTC that petitioner was not able to prove the same, to wit:
5
Labao v. Flores, 649 Phil. 213,223 (2010).
6
Rollo, p. 114.
7
Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Felipe, 720 Phil. 828, 840 (2013), citing Palana v. People, 560 Phil. 558, 569
(2007).
8
716 Phil. 267 (2013).
- more -
(2)URES I➔/,
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 254067
UINOTUAZON
!erk ofCourt /JJ$,
02 MAR 20'2I 3/J
(2)URES