Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED v. BELINDA P. SOLANO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
The grounds to be cited in the motion to reduce must be valid and acceptable. For instance, in Pasig Cylinder, Mfg., Corp. v. Rollo,[78] we found as acceptable reason for reducing the appeal bond the downscaling of their operations considered together with the amount of the monetary award appealed. In University Plans Incorporated v. Solano,[79] the fact of receivership was considered as a meritorious ground in reducing the appeal bond.
	GR No. 198935 2013-11-27	MAYNILAD WATER SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION v. MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES PEREZ, J.
In University Plans v. Solano,[26] this Court reiterated the guidelines which the NLRC must exercise in considering the motions for reduction of bond: The bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases. These cases include instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits, or (4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117 2013-10-17	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON REYES, J.
The requirement on the existence of a "meritorious ground" delves on the worth of the parties' arguments, taking into account their respective rights and the circumstances that attend the case. The condition was emphasized in University Plans Incorporated v. Solano,[95] wherein the Court held that while the NLRC's Revised Rules of Procedure "allows the [NLRC] to reduce the amount of the bond, the exercise of the authority is not a matter of right on the part of the movant, but lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of meritorious grounds."[96] By jurisprudence, the merit referred to may pertain to an appellant's lack of financial capability to pay the full amount of the bond,[97] the merits of the main appeal such as when there is a valid claim that there was no illegal dismissal to justify the award,[98] the absence of an employer-employee relationship,[99] prescription of claims,[100] and other similarly valid issues that are raised in the appeal.[101] For the purpose of determining a "meritorious ground", the NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence, or from making a preliminary determination of the merits of the appellant's contentions.[102]
	GR No. 175209 2013-01-16	ROLANDO L. CERVANTES v. PAL MARITIME CORPORATION PEREZ, J.
The appeal may have been treated differently had respondents failed to post the appeal bond itself. It bears mention that this Court had in numerous cases granted even the late posting of the appeal bond. In University Plans Incorporated v. Solano,[14] the Court ratiocinated: After all, the present case falls under those cases where the bond requirement on appeal may be relaxed considering that (1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules; (2) the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond; and (3) the petitioner, at the very least, exhibited its willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period. Also, such a procedure would be in keeping with the Labor Code's mandate to 'use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.'[15]