G.R. No. 1034 : March 31, 1903
DOMINGO HERNAEZ Y SALINAS, administrator of the intestate estate of Pedro Hernaez, petitioner, vs. W. F. NORRIS, judge of the Special Court of Negros, respondent.

FACTS:
The petitioner, as the legal administrator of the intestate estate of Pedro Hernaez, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to admit an appeal from an order settling the account of the judicial administrator, Pelabio Hernaez. The order was issued on June 7, 1902, with notice given on June 11. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal on June 12. The court did not issue an order upon this notice or fix the amount of an appeal bond. The petitioner subsequently filed a bond for 500 pesos based on the judge’s verbal indication, but the bond was later returned. On July 20, the court disallowed the appeal for not being duly taken. The respondent judge asserted the appeal was disallowed because the appellant failed to file the bond within twenty-one days from the entry of the order.

ISSUE:
Whether an appeal under Section 778 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the settlement of an administrator’s account is lost if the appellant, having filed a notice of appeal within twenty-one days but with no court order limiting the time for filing the bond, fails to file the appeal bond before the expiration of the twenty-one day period.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, albeit with a modification due to the abolition of the Special Court of Negros. The Court construed Sections 779 and 780 of the Code of Civil Procedure together. It held that the right to appeal is conditionally secured by filing the notice of appeal within the twenty-one-day period. This right is subject to the subsequent filing of a satisfactory bond within a time to be specially fixed by the judge in each case. The Court rejected the construction that the bond must invariably be filed within the same twenty-one-day period, noting that such a rigid requirement would cause great inconvenience and hardship given the communication difficulties in many parts of the Archipelago. The Court emphasized that where provisions are open to more than one construction, it must prefer the one that, under the exceptional local conditions, would most effectively promote the Code’s object of assisting parties in obtaining speedy justice (Section 2).

The writ of mandamus could not issue against the judge of the now-defunct Special Court. The Court directed that upon the petitioner filing a bond satisfactory to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros (to which the records were transferred) within twenty-one days from service of this order, it would be the duty of the clerk to transmit the certified transcript to the Supreme Court.