Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HILARIO S. RAMIREZ v. CA

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.
In several pronouncements,[100] this Court has adopted a particular understanding of the word "only" in the phrase "an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond." It has regarded the phrase as the legislative's unequivocal declaration that the posting of a cash or surety bond is the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal from a labor arbiter's decision may be perfected.
	GR No. 201237 2014-09-03	PHILIPPINE TOURISTERS v. MAS TRANSIT WORKERS UNION-ANGLO-KMU* PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
While it has been settled that the posting of a cash or surety bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decision of the LA,[62] the Rules of Procedure of the NLRC[63] (the Rules), particularly Section 6, Rule VI thereof, nonetheless allows the reduction of the bond upon a showing of (a) the existence of a meritorious ground for reduction, and (b) the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award, viz.: SEC. 6. BOND. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond. The appeal bond shall either be in cash or surety in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and attorney's fees.
	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
The requisites for perfection of appeal as embodied in Article 223, as amended, are: 1) payment of appeal fees; 2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and 3) payment of the required cash or surety bond.[47] These requisites must be satisfied within 10 days from receipt of the decision or order appealed from.
	GR No. 180147 2014-06-04	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
In Ramirez v. Court of Appeals,[77] the Court did not find any merit to reduce the bond. Although Ramirez posted an appeal bond, the same was insufficient, as it was not equivalent to the monetary award of the Labor Arbiter. Moreover, when Ramirez sought a reduction of the bond, he merely said that the bond was excessive and baseless without amplifying why he considered it as such.
	GR No. 201663 2014-03-31	EMMANUEL M. OLORES v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE PERALTA, J.
Sections 4 (a) and 6 of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, as amended, reaffirm the explicit jurisdictional principle in Article 223.[14] The relevant provisions state:SECTION 4. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. (a) The appeal shall be: 1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule; 2) verified by the appellant himself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, as amended; 3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, resolution or order; 4) in three (3) legibly type written or printed copies; and 5) accompanied by i) proof of payment of the required appeal fee; ii) posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule; iii) a certificate of non-forum shopping; and iv) proof of service upon the other parties.
	GR No. 187713 2012-08-01	RADIO PHILIPPINES NETWORK v. RUTH F. YAP REYES, J.
This Court invariably sustains the appellate court's dismissal of a petition on technical grounds, unless considerations of equity and substantial justice present cogent reasons to hold otherwise.[35] Leniency cannot be accorded absent valid and compelling reasons for such procedural lapse.[36] We are not unmindful of exceptional cases where this Court has set aside procedural defects to correct a patent injustice, provided that concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure is an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure to comply with the rules.[37] We find that an adequate justification has been proffered by the petitioners for their supposed procedural shortcoming.
	GR No. 170416 2011-06-22	UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED v. BELINDA P. SOLANO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The abovementioned provisions highlight the importance of posting a cash or surety bond in the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC from the Labor Arbiter's judgment involving a monetary award. Thus, in Ramirez v. Court of Appeals, [24] this Court held, viz: Under the Rules, appeals involving monetary awards are perfected only upon compliance with the following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) payment of the appeal fees; (2) filing of the memorandum of appeal; and (3) payment of the required cash or surety bond.