Petitioner received the challenged NLRC Resolution dated October 28, 1992 on November 7, 1992.xiv[14] From November 7, 1992 petitioner has a limited period of ten (10) days to perfect the appeal. Petitioner filed the "Notice of Appeal" with "Appeal Memorandum" and proof of payment of appeal fees on November 12, 1992 but it was only on November 20, 1992 that the requisite appeal bond was filed. Applying the NLRC rules of procedure, the appeal shall be taken only if it is shown that the required appeal fee is paid, the cash or surety bond and the memorandum of appeal are filed, otherwise, the running of the prescriptive period for perfecting an appeal will not be tolled. Petitioner insists that in view of its filing of the "Motion For Extension Of Time To File Appeal Bond," the posting of surety bond on November 20, 1992 is deemed to be on time. We disagree. As correctly observed by the NLRC, petitioner is presumptuous in assuming that the 10-day period for perfecting an appeal, during which she was to post her appeal bond, could be easily extended by the mere filing of an appropriate motion for extension to file the bond and even without the said motion being granted. It bears emphasizing that an appeal is only a statutory privilege and it may only be exercised in the manner provided by law.xv[15] Nevertheless, in certain cases, we had occasion to declare that while the rule treats the filing of a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from, as a jurisdictional requirement to perfect an appeal, the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards is sometimes given a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.xvi[16] However, we find no cogent reason to apply this same liberal interpretation in this case. Considering that the motion for extension to file appeal bond remained unacted upon, petitioner, pursuant to the NLRC rules, should have seasonably filed the appeal bond within the ten (10) day reglementary period following receipt of the order, resolution or decision of the NLRC to forestall the finality of such order, resolution or decision. Besides, the rule mandates that no motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be allowed.xvii[17] The motion filed by petitioner in this case is tantamount to an extension of the period for perfecting an appeal. As payment of the appeal bond is an indispensable and jurisdictional requisite and not a mere technicality of law or procedure, we find the challenged NLRC Resolution of October 26, 1993 and Order dated January 11, 1994 in accordance with law. The appeal filed by petitioner was not perfected within the reglementary period because the appeal bond was filed out of time. Consequently, the decision sought to be reconsidered became final and executory. Unless there is a clear and patent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the NLRC's denial of the appeal and the motion for reconsideration may not be disturbed. WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The challenged NLRC Resolution of October 26, 1993 and Order dated January 11, 1994 are hereby affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued on April 11, 1994 is hereby LIFTED. SO ORDERED. Bellosillo (Chairman), Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.