G.R. No. L-29554 November 20, 1972
MARIANO REYES, ASUNCION REYES, ROSARIO REYES, AGAPITA REYES, FELICIDAD REYES, and MARCOSA REYES, petitioners, vs. HON. ANDRES STA. MARIA, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch II; PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BULACAN; MARIA REYES Vda. DE SAYO, deceased, substituted by SIMON RAMOS and ROSARIO R. SAYO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the defendants in Civil Case No. 2599, received notice of an adverse decision on July 3, 1967. On July 25, 1967, within the 30-day reglementary period to appeal, they filed two ex-parte motions: one to appeal as paupers and another for a 30-day extension from August 3, 1967, to file their record on appeal. The respondent judge was on vacation, and no action was taken on these motions. The requested extension period lapsed on September 1, 1967, without petitioners filing a record on appeal. The private respondent then moved to declare the judgment final and to issue a writ of execution.
On October 31, 1967, the trial court denied the motion to appeal as paupers and, noting the expiration of the requested extension period without a record on appeal being filed, dismissed the appeal and ordered execution. Petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration and later attempt to file a record on appeal with a notice of appeal (no longer as paupers) were denied. They then filed this special civil action for mandamus to compel approval of their record on appeal and to stop execution.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the filing of the ex-parte motions to appeal as paupers and for an extension of time to file the record on appeal interrupted the running of the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The filing of a motion for extension of time to file a record on appeal does not, by itself, interrupt the reglementary period. The period continues to run. For an extension to be effective, it must be granted by the court before the original period expires. Here, the court did not act on the motion for extension before the original period lapsed on August 2, 1967. Consequently, the period petitioners asked for (30 days from August 3) never legally commenced. Their failure to file the record on appeal by August 2, 1967, rendered the decision final and executory.
Furthermore, a motion to appeal as a pauper does not suspend the period for perfecting an appeal. The appeal is only perfected upon the filing of the record on appeal and the appeal bond (or the approval of the pauper’s appeal). Since no record on appeal was filed within the original period, the appeal was not perfected. The trial court correctly dismissed it. Mandamus does not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary act, such as approving a record on appeal for an appeal that was not timely perfected. The orders of the respondent judge were in accordance with law.