Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LYDIA BUENAOBRA v. LIM KING GUAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 164156 2006-09-26	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. MARLYN NAZARENO CALLEJO, SR., J.
In the case at bar, the NLRC did not commit a grave abuse of its discretion in giving Article 223[21] of the Labor Code a liberal application to prevent the miscarriage of justice. Technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties.[22] We have held in a catena of cases that technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the workingman.[23]
	GR NO. 152843 2006-07-20	INTERCONTINENTAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. REYNALDO BENEDICTO CORONA, J.
The provision of Article 223 of the Labor Code requiring the posting of a bond for the perfection of an appeal of a monetary award must be given liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.[30] If only to achieve substantial justice, strict observance of the reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted.[31] However, this liberal interpretation must be justified by substantial compliance with the rule. As we declared in Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan:[32]
	GR NO. 166594 2006-07-20	CIUDAD FERNANDINA FOOD CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The case of Star Angel was cited in the subsequent case of Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan[11] where the private respondents filed a Memorandum on Appeal and a Motion to Dispense with the posting of a cash or surety appeal bond on the ground they were not employers of the petitioners (employees in said case). The Court reiterated the need for a liberal interpretation of Article 223 of the Labor Code on the posting of bonds on appeals involving monetary awards.
	GR NO. 155207 2005-04-29	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, 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,[35] the law does admit of 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.[36] But while this Court may relax the observance of reglementary periods and technical rules to achieve substantial justice,[37] it is not prepared to give due course to this petition and make a pronouncement on the weighty issue obtaining in this case until the law has been duly complied with and the requisite appeal bond duly paid by private respondents.
	GR NO. 163786 2005-02-16	TIMES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. SANTOS SOTELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that in case of a judgment involving 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 NLRC in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making the judgment final and executory.[18] However, in several cases, we have relaxed the rules regarding the appeal bond especially where it must necessarily yield to the broader interest of substantial justice.[19] The Rules of Procedure of the NLRC allows for the reduction of the appeal bond upon motion of the appellant and on meritorious grounds.[20] It is required however that such motion is filed within the reglementary period to appeal.
	GR No. 149329 2004-07-12	ROSITA PANGILINAN v. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
In petitions for review on certiorari of the decision of the CA, only errors of law are generally reviewed.[29] Normally, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[30] In the absence of any showing that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion, or otherwise acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, the Court is bound by its findings.[31] Such findings are not infallible, however, particularly when there is a showing that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. In such case, they may be re-examined by the Court. Hence, when the factual findings of the NLRC are contrary to those of the Labor Arbiter, the evidentiary facts may be reviewed by the appellate court.[32] Considering that the NLRC's findings clash with those of the Labor Arbiter's, this Court is compelled to go over the records of the case as well as the submissions of the parties.[33]