Posted by: Michelle M. Bacarra on July 21, 2018
FACTS:
On October 11, 1957, Libertad Altavas Conlu received a copy of decision against his favor, of a cadastral case covering a lot of the Capiz Cadastre, rendered by CFI Capiz on October 3, 1957.
On November 5, 1957, Altavas filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial, praying that the decision be set aside upon the grounds that it is contrary to law and is not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court denied said motion in an order dated January 11, 1958, notice of which was received by Altavas on January 15, 1958. On January 13, 1958, she filed a "Petition Ex Parte for Extension of Time to Perfect The Appeal." The following day, the trial court granted thirty (30) days from that day, January 14, within which petitioner may submit her record on appeal.
Altavas filed notice of appeal and appeal bond on February 1, 1958, or twelve (12) days after January 20 when the original reglementary period to appeal had expired. On February 8, that is, five days before the expiration of the thirty days extension, Altavas filed against the approval of the record on appeal. The trial court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond and the notice of appeal were filed out of time on March 1, 1958. Motion to reconsider that order of dismissal had been denied. Then, the petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals an action for mandamus praying that the CFI be ordered to approve, certify and transmit to it the record on appeal. Altavas was denied of such relief from the CA, so he brought the case to the Supreme Court contending that the prayed extension of time not merely to submit the record on appeal but to perfect her appeal, which includes the filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the order for extension of time to submit record on appeal of time includes extension to perfect an appeal, and of the filing of the notice of appeal and the appeal bond.
HELD:
No, Altavas contention is devoid of merit..There is no question that the petitioner was given an additional thirty (30) days within which to submit her record on appeal from January 14, 1959. An extension of time granted for the filing of the record on appeal does not also carry with it an extension for the filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond.
If the trial court really intended to extend also the period for the filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond, it could have easily stated so in its order, or simply, the order would have granted "an additional 30 days to perfect the appeal. Presumably, the reason of the trial court in granting an extension only for the filing of the record on appeal is that the petition for extension was predicated solely on the ground "that the record of the case is very voluminous and the Record on Appeal will probably consist of 50 typewritten pages more or less so that it would need much time to prepare, finish and file the Record on Appeal and furthermore due to pressure of work her counsel cannot attend exclusively in the preparation of said Record on Appeal.
Rules of Courts, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law; and rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.
