LIBERTAD ALTAVAS CONLU, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

The facts involved are not controverted. On October 3, 1957, the
Court of First Instance of Capiz handed down a decision in Cadastral
Case No. 5, G.L.R.O. Record No. 337, covering a lot of the Capiz
Cadastre. The herein petitioner against whom said decision was rendered
received a copy thereof on October 11, 1957. Twenty-five (25) days
thereafter, or on November 5 of that same year, petitioner 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 said motion was denied by the
trial court in an order dated January 11, 1958, notice of which was
received by petitioner on January 15. On January 13, 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.

On February 1, 1958, twelve (12) days after January 20 when the
original reglementary period to appeal had expired, petitioner filed
notice of appeal and appeal bond, and on February 8, that is, five days
before the expiration of the thirty days extension, petitioner filed
the record on appeal. Sustaining some oppositions filed against the
approval of the record on appeal, the trial court, on March 1, 1958,
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal bond and the notice
of appeal were filed out of time. Motion to reconsider that order of
dismissal had been denied. Whereupon, the petitioner filed with the
Court of Appeals an action for mandamus praying that the Court of First
Instance be ordered to approve, certify and transmit to it the record
on appeal. Failing to obtain such relief from the appeals court, the
petitioner has brought the case to us for review.

After going over the record, we are persuaded that the petitioner
has not made out a good case for the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

There is no question that the petitioner was given an additional
thirty (30) days within which to submit her record on appeal, for on
January 14, 1959, the Court of First Instance issued the following
order:

“As prayed for in the ex parte motion of Attorney Jose Y. Torres, he is hereby given thirty (30) days from today within which to submit his record on appeal.” (Italics ours)

Petitioner contends that the order above-quoted extended also the
filing of the notice of appeal and the appeal bond. Petitioner’s main
argument is that her petition dated January 13, 1958 prayed for an
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. The contention is devoid of merit. The language used
in the order is plain and unequivocal. It cannot be construed in the
manner suggested by petitioner. 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.” In fact, the said court clearly explained the meaning of its
order of extension as being limited to the filing of the record on
appeal when on March 1, 1958, it issued an order dismissing the appeal
for the untimely filing of the notice of appeal and appeal bond.
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.”

In the case of Silverio Salva vs. Hon. Perfecto R. Palacio,
et al., 90 Phil., 731, 52 Off. Gaz., p. 3089, this Court has held that
an extension of time granted to amend a record on appeal does not carry
with it an extension of the reglementary period for the filing of the
appeal bond. Similarly, in this case, we hold that the 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.

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
(Shioji vs. Harvey, 43 Phil., 333; Alvero vs. De la Rosa et al., 76 Phil., 428, 42 Off. Gaz., p. 316).

Conformably with the foregoing, the resolution sought to be reviewed is hereby affirmed, at petitioner’s costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.