G.R. No. 30960 October 5, 1989
MACARIA ABARRIENTOS VDA. DE CAPULONG, FLORA CAPULONG and HON. FEDERICO ALIKPALA, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXII, petitioners, vs. WORKMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Workmen’s Insurance Co., Inc. received a copy of the trial court’s adverse decision on January 4, 1969. On February 3, 1969, the final day of the 30-day reglementary period to perfect an appeal, it filed a motion for an extension of at least thirty days to file its record on appeal. The trial judge, Hon. Federico Alikpala, issued an order on February 4, 1969, granting only a ten-day extension but without specifying when the extension period would commence. The private respondent received this order on February 7, 1969, and subsequently filed its record on appeal on February 14, 1969.
Judge Alikpala disapproved the record on appeal as filed out of time. He ruled that the 10-day extension period commenced immediately after the original deadline of February 3, 1969, thus expiring on February 13, 1969. The Court of Appeals, upon a petition for certiorari, reversed the trial court. It held that the extension period should be counted from the movant’s receipt of the order granting it, which was February 7, 1969, making the February 14 filing timely.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to grant the motion for extension filed on the last day of the appeal period, and from which date the granted extension period should be computed.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The trial court retained jurisdiction to act on the motion for extension filed before the expiration of the reglementary period. Citing Buena v. Surtida and Singbengco v. Arellano, the Court held that a motion for extension filed on the last day for appeal, while it does not suspend the running of the period, remains within the court’s discretion to grant or deny. When Judge Alikpala granted the extension on February 4, his act was valid as the motion was still pending and unacted upon. Consequently, the period for appeal was validly extended.
Regarding the computation of the extension, the Court ruled that the 10-day period should commence from the private respondent’s receipt of the order on February 7, 1969, not from the expiration of the original period on February 3. This interpretation aligns with the principle that a party should be given the full benefit of the granted extension from the time it is notified of the court’s favorable action. Therefore, the record on appeal filed on February 14 was filed within the extended period.
The Court also addressed the petitioners’ argument that the appeal was pointless as the insurer’s liability is dependent on the principal defendants, whose own appeal had been dismissed. It noted an exception to the rule on the solidary nature of appeals where the rights and liabilities of parties are so interwoven that a reversal for one could affect all. The merits of the private respondent’s appeal could potentially absolve it or even impact the liability of the principal defendants, warranting a review on appeal. The appeal was thus allowed to proceed.