Key legal question
Whether the appeal was admissible despite non-payment of the ordered security deposit under Art. 383 CCP.
Extracted holding
The appeal was inadmissible because the appellant failed to provide the required security within the time limit and did not seek an extension or restoration.
Extracted reasoning
Under Art. 383 CCP, failure to provide security within the set deadline prevents the appellate court from entering into the merits. The notification of the order requiring security was deemed effective after the postal holding period, and no timely payment or procedural request was made.