Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ACCESSORIES SPECIALIST INC. v. ERLINDA B. ALABANZA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 191694 2014-12-03	NARCISO ZAPANTA v. CO KING KI VILLARAMA, JR., J.
While it is true that when an appeal is filed, the approval of a notice of appeal is a ministerial duty of the court or tribunal which rendered the decision, it is required, however, that said appeal must have been filed on time.[24] It bears reiterating that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.[25]
	GR No. 196047 2014-01-15	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CORPORATION v. BELIO ICAO SERENO, C.J.
Fourth, this ruling remains faithful to the spirit behind the appeal bond requirement which is to ensure that workers will receive the money awarded in their favor when the employer's appeal eventually fails.[24] There was no showing at all of any attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the posting of the appeal bond. On the contrary, petitioner's move showed a willingness to comply with the requirement. Hence, the welfare of Icao is adequately protected.
	GR No. 186158 2010-11-22	CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIP MANAGEMENT v. GERONIMO MADJUS CARPIO MORALES, J.
Contrary to petitioner's assertion, it could not, at the time respondent moved for the execution of the Labor Arbiter's monetary awards, have been compelled to immediately pay the judgment award, for it had filed with the NLRC an appeal bond,[21] intended to assure respondent that if he prevailed in the case, he would receive the money judgment in his favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal.[22] The Labor Arbiter and the appellate court may not thus be faulted for interpreting petitioner's "conditional settlement" to be tantamount to an amicable settlement of the case resulting in the mootness of the petition for certiorari.
	GR No. 183417 2010-02-05	MINDANAO TIMES CORPORATION v. MITCHEL R. CONFESOR CARPIO MORALES, J.
Clearly, an appeal from a judgment as that involved in the present case is perfected "only" upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza enlightens:[12]
	GR No. 182626 2009-12-04	HILARIO S. RAMIREZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.[20]
	GR No. 174209 2009-08-25	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. RIZALINA RAUT NACHURA, J.
Our ruling in Accessories Specialist, Inc. v. Alabanza[6] emphasizes the nature of an appeal: Furthermore, we would like to reiterate that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Thus, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. The requirements for perfecting an appeal must, as a rule, be strictly followed. Such requirements are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and are necessary for the orderly discharge of the judicial business. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. Just as a losing party has the privilege to file an appeal within the prescribed period, so does the winner also have the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision.
	GR No. 164032 2009-01-19	BANDO v. QUEZON CITY SPORTS CLUB TINGA, J.
Thus, the posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the labor arbiter. The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer is clearly expressed in the provision that an appeal by the employer may be perfected "only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." The word "only" makes it unmistakably plain that the lawmakers intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the essential and exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected. The word "may" refers to the perfection of an appeal as optional on the part of the defeated party, but not to the compulsory posting of an appeal bond, if he desires to appeal. The meaning and the intention of the legislature in enacting a statute must be determined from the language employed; and where there is no ambiguity in the words used, then there is no room for construction. The filing of the bond is not only mandatory but also a jurisdictional requirement that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance with the requirement renders the decision of the labor arbiter final and executory. This requirement is intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor uponthe dismissal of the employer's appeal. Itisintended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.[26]