G.R. No. A.C. No. 7527; July 18, 1946
JOSE L. MOYA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. JOHN BARTON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In Civil Case No. 7527 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff Jose L. Moya against defendant John Barton on February 14, 1946. The defendant filed a motion for new trial 28 days later, on March 14, 1946, which was denied. The order of denial was served on the defendant on April 1, 1946. The following day, April 2, 1946, the defendant filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond. Simultaneously, he filed a motion requesting a five-day extension to file his record on appeal, arguing it was impossible to have it typewritten and filed by the next day, April 3, which was the last day of the statutory period. The lower court granted the extension motion on the same day it was presented. The defendant filed his appeal on time, and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. The plaintiff-appellee filed a motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal on two grounds: (1) the lower court had no power to extend the period for filing the record on appeal, and (2) the plaintiff was not notified of the defendant’s motion for extension and the motion was not set for hearing.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court had the power to extend the period for filing the record on appeal.
2. Whether the lower court erred in granting the motion for extension ex-parte without notice to the plaintiff-appellee.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal.
1. On the power to extend the period: The Court held that a lower court has the power and discretion to extend the period for filing a record on appeal in the interest of justice. This is permissible if the appellant did not have sufficient time to prepare and file it within the statutory period due to reasons such as a very short remaining period, a voluminous record, or other justifiable circumstances, provided the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the original period. The law must be construed liberally and reasonably. The Court found support for this conclusion in Section 7 of Rule 41, which allows a court to order the amendment of a record on appeal and grant time to file the amended record. It also cited analogous rulings under the old Code of Civil Procedure, where the Court had upheld the power to extend the period for filing a bill of exceptions.
2. On the ex-parte grant of the motion: The Court ruled that the motion for extension could be considered as one that may be heard ex-parte under Section 2 of Rule 27. This is because the extension sought might be shorter than the time required to set a motion for hearing, and the court has discretion in such matters. Therefore, the lower court did not err in granting the petition for extension without notice to the opposing party.
Motion for dismissal of appeal is denied.