Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COMPUTER INNOVATIONS CENTER v. NLRC

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 182626 2009-12-04	HILARIO S. RAMIREZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For the same reason, we have repeatedly emphasized that the requirement for posting the surety bond is not merely procedural but jurisdictional and cannot be trifled with. Non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[29]
	GR Nos. 178034 & 178117; GR Nos. 186984-85 2009-09-18	ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While the bond may be reduced upon motion by the employer, this is 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 the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal.[35] The qualification effectively requires that unless the NLRC grants the reduction of the cash bond within the 10 day reglementary period, the employer is still expected to post the cash or surety bond securing the full amount within the said 10-day period. If the NLRC does eventually grant the motion for reduction after the reglementary period has elapsed, the correct relief would be to reduce the cash or surety bond already posted by the employer within the 10-day period.[36]
	GR No. 159026 2008-02-11	MRS. ALBERTA YANSON v. SECRETARY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner pointed out, however, that Article 223[30] of the Labor Code prescribes similar requirements for perfection of appeals to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); yet, the same has been applied with moderation in that a reduction of the appeal bond may be allowed.[31] That is correct; but then, it should be borne in mind that reduction of bond in the NLRC is expressly authorized under the Rules implementing Article 223, viz.:[32]
	GR No. 172409 2008-02-04	ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION v. NLRC and JOSE MARTILLOS TINGA, J,
Contrary to petitioners' assertion, the appeal bond is not merely procedural but jurisdictional. Without said bond, the NLRC does not acquire jurisdiction over the appeal.[23] Indeed, non-compliance with such legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[24] It must be stressed that there is no inherent right to an appeal in a labor case, as it arises solely from the grant of statute.[25]
	GR No. 172409 2008-02-04	ROOS INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION v. NLRC and JOSE MARTILLOS TINGA, J,
In addition, petitioners cannot take refuge behind the Court's ruling in Star Angel. Pertinently, the Court stated in Computer Innovations Center v. National Labor Relations Commission:[31]
	GR No. 170099 2007-11-28	COLBY CONTSRUCTION v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is clear from both the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules of Procedure that there is legislative and administrative intent to strictly apply the appeal bond requirement, and the Court should give utmost regard to this intention.[21] A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites mentioned shall not stop the running of the period for perfection of appeal. The posting of cash or surety bond is not only mandatory but jurisdictional as well, and non-compliance therewith is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory.[22]
	GR NO. 164888 2006-12-06	RURAL BANK OF CORON v. ANNALISA CORTES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioners additionally cite Star Angel Handicraft v. NLRC[28] to support their position that there is a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection. In the parallel case of Computer Innovations Center v. National Labor Relations Commission,[29] this Court hesitated to reiterate the doctrine in Star Angel in this wise:Petitioners invoke the aforementioned holding in Star Angel that there is a distinction between the filing of an appeal within the reglementary period and its perfection, and that the appeal may be perfected after the said reglementary period. Indeed, Star Angel held that the filing of a motion for reduction of appeal bond necessarily stays the reglementary period for appeal. However, in this case, the motion for reduction of appeal bond which was incorporated in the appeal memorandum, ,was filed only on the tenth or final day of the reglementary period. Under such circumstance, the motion for reduction of appeal bond can no longer be deemed to have stayed the appeal, and the petitioner faces the risk, as had happened in this case, of summary dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection.