G.R. No. L-23772 November 25, 1967
BARTOLOME FERNANDEZ, petitioner, vs. HON. ROBERTO ZURBANO, as Judge of the CFI of Albay, and DOMINGO LUNAS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bartolome Fernandez, through counsel Atty. Ramon C. Fernandez, was an oppositor in Land Registration Case No. N-191. Counsel received a copy of the decision on December 7, 1963. On January 3, 1964, he filed a motion to set aside the decision, which was denied on January 13, 1964, with notice received on January 14. On that same date, January 14, within the appeal period, counsel filed a motion for extension of time “to perfect his appeal and that said oppositor be allowed to file a cash bond in the amount of P60.00.” On January 15, the court issued an order granting an “extendible period of 10 days from January 16, 1964 to file the record on appeal” and allowed the filing of a P60.00 cash bond. On January 22, counsel filed the notice of appeal, record on appeal, and deposited the P60.00 cash bond. On January 28, the court disapproved the record on appeal and dismissed the appeal, ruling that the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed five days late, as the last day for filing them was January 17. A petition for relief was denied. Petitioner then filed a mandamus proceeding before the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals held that while the late filing of the notice of appeal was cured by the timely filing of the record on appeal within the extended period, the appeal was not perfected on time because the appeal bond was not filed within the reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether the extension of time granted by the trial court for filing the record on appeal also applied to the period for filing the notice of appeal and the appeal bond, under the circumstances of the case.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered the Court of First Instance to give due course to the petitioner’s appeal. The Court held that under the specific facts of the case, the petitioner’s right to appeal should not be defeated by a procedural technicality. The motion for extension sought to “perfect his appeal,” which comprehends the filing of the notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond, and also sought clarification on the amount of the cash bond. The court’s order, which found the motion “meritorious” and allowed a P60.00 cash bond without specifying a separate period for its filing, implicitly granted an extension for filing the cash bond within the same period granted for filing the record on appeal. The Court applied the rule of liberal construction under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Revised Rules of Court to promote a just determination, noting the counsel’s justifiable belief and the absence of gross negligence. The circumstances were distinguished from cited cases where no justifiable reason for delay was shown.