This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-08-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Time and again, however, this Court, considering the substantial merits of the case, has relaxed this rule on, and excused the late posting of, the appeal bond when there are strong and compelling reasons for the liberality,[14] such as the prevention of miscarriage of justice extant in the case[15] or the special circumstances in the case combined with its legal merits or the amount and the issue involved.[16] After all, technical rules cannot prevent courts from exercising their duties to determine and settle, equitably and completely, the rights and obligations of the parties.[17] This is one case where the exception to the general rule lies. | |||||
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from. (emphasis supplied) While the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business, the law does admit exceptions when warranted by the circumstances. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[37] Thus, in some cases, the bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards had been relaxed, such as when (i) there was substantial compliance with the Rules; (ii) the surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious ground to reduce the bond; (iii) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits; or (iv) the appellants, at the very least exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period.[38] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The requirement that the employer post a cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employers' appeal. It was intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employee's just and lawful claims.[14] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| This last contention of petitioners deserves scant consideration. The technical requirements for filing an appeal are not sacrosanct. It has been held that while the requirements for perfecting an appeal must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and for orderly discharge of judicial business, the law does admit of exceptions when warranted by circumstances.[8] In the present case, the CA cannot be faulted in choosing to overlook the technical defects of respondent's appeal. After all, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[9] | |||||