The NLRC in a Resolution dated October 26, 1993 dismissed the appeal with the following ratiocination: On November 12, 1992, the respondent appealed from the aforesaid disposition without however posting an appeal bond required in this jurisdiction. In fact, on the same date, November 12, 1992, the respondent filed a `Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond (Record, pp. 264-265) asking that it be given ten (10) days within which to file an appeal bond. Thus, it was only on November 20, 1992 that the respondent was able to post the required appeal bond. It being settled that perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period carries with it the duty to post cash or surety bond, as required by law, on time (Italian Village Restaurant vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 95594, March 11, 1992, 2 Div., Nocon, J.) and the Supreme Court having likewise held: nd `Well-settled is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. Failure to interpose a timely appeal (or a motion for reconsideration) renders the appealed decision, order or award final and executory that deprives the appellate body of any jurisdiction to alter the final judgment (San Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 101021, April 6, 1993, 3 Div., Melo, J., citing Paramount Vinyl Corp. v. NLRC, et al. [190 SCRA 533 (1990) and all its jurisprudential references]. rd we cannot but dismiss respondents appeal. WHEREFORE, respondents appeal is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED.vii[7] Not satisfied with the NLRC Resolution, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. Petitioner contends that in view of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond specifically praying for an extension of ten (10) days from November 13, 1992 or until November 23, 1993 within which to file and submit the required appeal bond, the posting of the appeal bond on November 20, 1992 is deemed to have been filed on time. Furthermore, petitioner argued that the "Notice of Appeal," the "Appeal Memorandum" and the "Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal Bond" were filed to perfect the appeal from the decision of the POEA to the NLRC.viii[8] On January 11, 1994, the NLRC issued an Order denying the motion for reconsideration with the following disquisition: The problem with respondent is that she assumes that the 10-day period for perfecting an appeal, fixed by Article 223 of the Labor Code, and during which she was to post her appeal bond, exists at the pleasure of, and can easily be extended by the appellants so that even without our granting her motion for extension, an appeal bond thereafter filed has to be reconsidered as filed, worse, on time. In a fairly recent case, not far detached by time, the Supreme Court held: