Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 164344 2008-12-23	KENJI OKADA v. SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
We cannot agree. This Court in U-Sing Button and Buckle Industry v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] held:[T]he obvious and logical purpose of an appeal bond is to insure, during the period of appeal, against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish recovery under the judgment if subsequently affirmed; it also validates and justifies, at least prima facie, an interpretation that would limit the amount of the bond to the aggregate of the sums awarded other than in the concept of moral and exemplary damages.[34] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 164344 2008-11-23	KENJI OKADA v. SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
We cannot agree. This Court in U-Sing Button and Buckle Industry v. National Labor Relations Commission[33] held: [T]he obvious and logical purpose of an appeal bond is to insure, during the period of appeal, against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish recovery under the judgment if subsequently affirmed; it also validates and justifies, at least prima facie, an interpretation that would limit the amount of the bond to the aggregate of the sums awarded other than in the concept of moral and exemplary damages.[34] (Emphasis supplied)