Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE v. EULALIO GANZON

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 213696 2015-12-09	QUANTUM FOODS v. MARCELINO ESLOYO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In this regard, it bears stressing that the reduction of the bond provided thereunder is not a matter of right on the part of the movant and its grant still lies within the sound discretion of the NLRC upon a showing of meritorious grounds and the reasonableness of the bond tendered under the circumstances.[66] The requirement on the existence of a "meritorious ground" delves on the worth of the parties' arguments, taking into account their respective rights and the circumstances that attend the case.[67]
	GR No. 206612 2015-08-17	TOYOTA ALABANG v. EDWIN GAMES SERENO, C.J.
As correctly ruled by the CA, the reopening of a case is, by default, not allowed merely on the ground that the counsel has been negligent in taking the required steps to protect the interest of the client, such as timely filing a pleading, appearing during hearings, and perfecting appeals.[24] An exception arises only when there is good cause and excusable negligence on the client's part.[25]
	GR No. 193034 2015-07-20	RODGING REYES v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
At the outset, the Court emphasizes that second and subsequent motions for reconsideration are, as a general rule, prohibited. Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides that "no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained." The rule rests on the basic tenet of immutability of judgments. "At some point, a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must come to an end."[13]
	GR No. 195109 2015-02-04	ANDY D. BALITE v. SS VENTURES INTERNATIONAL PEREZ, J.
In McBurnie v. Ganzon,[15] we harmonized the provision on appeal that its procedures are fairly applied to both the petitioner and the respondent, assuring by such application that neither one or the other party is unfairly favored. We pronounced that the posting of a cash or surety bond in an amount equivalent to 10% of the monetary award pending resolution of the motion to reduce appeal bond shall be deemed sufficient to perfect an appeal, to wit:It is in this light that the Court finds it necessary to set a parameter for the litigants' and the NLRC's guidance on the amount of bond that shall hereafter be filed with a motion for a bond's reduction. To ensure that the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure that give parties the chance to seek a reduction of the appeal bond are effectively carried out, without however defeating the benefits of the bond requirement in favor of a winning litigant, all motions to reduce bond that are to be filed with the NLRC shall be accompanied by the posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award that is subject of the appeal, which shall provisionally be deemed the reasonable amount of the bond in the meantime that an appellant's motion is pending resolution by the Commission. In conformity with the NLRC Rules, the monetary award, for the purpose of computing the necessary appeal bond, shall exclude damages and attorney's fees. Only after the posting of a bond in the required percentage shall an appellant's period to perfect an appeal under the NLRC Rules be deemed suspended.
	GR No. 180147 2015-01-14	SARA LEE PHILIPPINES v. EMILINDA D. MACATLANG PEREZ, J.
The Corporations score this Court for failing to consider the ruling in McBurnie v. Ganzon[4] which purportedly required only the posting of a bond equivalent to 10% of the monetary award.
	GR No. 201663 2014-03-31	EMMANUEL M. OLORES v. MANILA DOCTORS COLLEGE PERALTA, J.
The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards from the decisions of the Labor Arbiter. The lawmakers clearly intended to make the bond a mandatory requisite for the perfection of an appeal by the employer as inferred from 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 clear that the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer is the essential and exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected. Moreover, the filing of the bond is not only mandatory, but a jurisdictional requirement as well, that must be complied with in order to confer jurisdiction upon the NLRC. Non-compliance therewith 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 upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal. It is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.[16]
	GR No. 196426 2011-08-15	MARTICIO SEMBLANTE v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
Indeed, 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.[13] Article 223 of the Labor Code provides: Article 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. Such appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
	GR No. 182626 2009-12-04	HILARIO S. RAMIREZ v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
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" in Articles 223 of the Labor Code 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.[19]