Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP.

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 189262 2015-07-06	GBMLT MANPOWER SERVICES v. MA. VICTORIA H. MALINAO SERENO, C.J.
Nevertheless, we have had occasion to rule that the appeal bond requirement for judgments involving monetary awards may be relaxed in meritorious cases,[108] as in instances when a liberal interpretation would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.[109] In the recent Balite v. SS Ventures International, Inc.,[110] we recognized that there was a need "to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation of the state to afford protection to labor on the one hand, and the opportunity afforded to the employer to appeal on the other."[111] In this kind of undertaking, the Court is justified in giving employers the amplest opportunity to pursue their cause while ensuring that employees will receive the money judgment should the case be ultimately decided in their favor.
	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
Upon the other hand, the Court did relax the rule respecting the bond requirement to perfect appeal in cases where: (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.[71]
	GR No. 187693 2010-07-13	INTERTRANZ CONTAINER LINES v. MA. TERESA I. BAUTISTA BRION, J.
The NLRC dismissed the petitioners' appeal for non-perfection/non-compliance with the appeal bond requirement without passing upon - in fact, completely ignoring - the petitioners' motion for time to post the required bond. The NLRC should have granted the motion for extension since there was no showing that it was intended to delay the resolution of the case. More importantly, the petitioners exhibited good faith and willingness to post the bond within the period they asked for which, in fact, they did on June 1, 2006.[32]
	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. 179652 2009-05-08	PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 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]
	GR No. 164032 2009-01-19	BANDO v. QUEZON CITY SPORTS CLUB TINGA, J.
[29] G.R. No. 159372, 27 July 2007, 528 SCRA 300.
	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]