Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CESAR V. GARCIA v. KJ COMMERCIAL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 213696 2015-12-09	QUANTUM FOODS v. MARCELINO ESLOYO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It should be emphasized that the NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the motion to reduce bond,[77] and its ruling will not be disturbed unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Verily, an act of a court or tribunal can only be considered to be tainted with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction,[78] which clearly is not extant with respect to the NLRC's cognizance of QFI's appeal. Far from having gravely abused its discretion, the NLRC correctly preferred substantial justice over the rigid and stringent application of procedural rules. This, by all means, is not a case of grave abuse of discretion calling for the issuance of a writ of certiorari,[79] warranting the reversal of the CA's ruling granting the certiorari petition and the remand of the case to the C A for appropriate action.
	GR No. 203355 2015-08-18	LEO R. ROSALES v. NEW A.N.J.H. ENTERPRISES VELASCO JR., J.
On the issue of perfecting the appeal, the CA was correct when it pointed out that Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provides that a motion to reduce bond shall be entertained "upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award." As to what the "reasonable amount" is, the NLRC has wide discretion in determining the reasonableness of the bond for purposes of perfecting an appeal. In Garcia v. KJ Commercial,[31] this Court explained:The filing of a motion to reduce bond and compliance with the two conditions stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. x x x
	GR No. 195513 2015-06-22	MARLON BEDUYA v. ACE PROMOTION DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is thus clear from the foregoing that the filing of supersedeas bond for the perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.[28] However, this Court, in many cases,[29] has relaxed this stringent requirement whenever justified. Thus, the rules, specifically Section 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, allows the reduction of the appeal bond subject to the conditions that: (1) the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on meritorious grounds; and (2) a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award is posted by the appellant. Otherwise, the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Still, the rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute.[30] The Court may relax the rule under certain exceptional circumstances which include fundamental consideration of substantial justice, prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment and special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.[31] Indeed, in meritorious cases, the Court was propelled to relax the requirements relating to appeal bonds such as when there are valid issues raised in the appeal[32] and in the absence of any valid claims against the employer.[33]
	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
In Lopez v. Quezon City Sports Club Inc.,[72] the posting of the amount of P4,000,000.00 simultaneously with the filing of the motion to reduce the bond to that amount, as well as the filing of the memorandum of appeal, all within the reglementary period, altogether constitute substantial compliance with the Rules. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista,[73] this Court has relaxed the appeal bond requirement when it was clear from the records that petitioners never intended to evade the posting of an appeal bond. In Semblante v. Court of Appeals,[74] the Court stated that the rule on the posting of an appeal bond cannot defeat the substantive rights of respondents to be free from an unwarranted burden of answering for an illegal dismissal for which they were never responsible. It was found that respondents, not being petitioners' employees, could never have been dismissed legally or illegally. In the recent case of Garcia v. KJ Commercial,[75] respondent showed willingness to post a partial bond when it posted a P50,000.00 cash bond upon filing of a motion to reduce bond. In addition, when respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied, it posted the full surety bond.
	GR No. 198935 2013-11-27	MAYNILAD WATER SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION v. MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES PEREZ, J.
Anent the issue of the insufficiency of the appeal bond posted by Maynilad, we agree with the NLRC that there was merit in the arguments forwarded in support of the prayer for the reduction of the appeal bond. Maynilad sought the reduction of the appeal bond to ten percent (10%) for the following reasons: a) that it had filed a Petition for Rehabilitation before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; and b) that as a result thereof, the Rehabilitation Court issued a Stay Order prohibiting it from selling, encumbering, transferring or disposing in any manner any of its properties making it impossible for it to fully comply with the appeal bond requirement.[24] Our ruling in Garcia, et al. v. KJ Commercial [25] that the bond requirement on appeals may be relaxed when there is substantial compliance with the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC or when the appellant shows willingness to post a partial bond. Here, we note that Maynilad's appeal was accompanied by an appeal bond in the amount of Twenty Five Million Pesos (P25,000,000.00) with an Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Reduce Bond on the ground that the labor arbiter failed to specify the exact amount of monetary award from which the amount of the appeal bond is to be based.
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117 2013-10-17	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON REYES, J.
To clarify, the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter provides that the filing of a motion to reduce bond, coupled with compliance with the two conditions emphasized in Garcia v. KJ Commercial[78] for the grant of such motion, namely, (1) a meritorious ground, and (2) posting of a bond in a reasonable amount, shall suffice to suspend the running of the period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiter's decision to the NLRC.[79] To require the full amount of the bond within the 10-day reglementary period would only render nugatory the legal provisions which allow an appellant to seek a reduction of the bond. Thus, we explained in Garcia: The filing of a motion to reduce bond and compliance with the two conditions stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. x x x
	GR No. 170029 2012-11-21	SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY v. MARICEL N. BAJARO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that petitioners are raising before the Court for the first time, the applicability of the principles of private international law and the labor standards laws of the Republic of China in the proper interpretation of respondents' employment contracts. Records show that petitioners never advanced this issue at the first opportunity before the Labor Arbiter, and even in the subsequent proceedings before the NLRC and the CA. Instead, petitioners' arguments consistently centered on the existence of a valid retrenchment and compliance with the requirements to legally effect the same. It bears stressing that issues not raised in the proceedings below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.[17] Specifically, points of law, theories and arguments not raised before the appellate court will not be considered by the Court.[18]