This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-07-06 |
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. | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It is thus clear from the foregoing that the filing of supersedeas bond for the perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional and failure to comply with this requirement renders the decision of the Labor Arbiter final and executory.[28] However, this Court, in many cases,[29] has relaxed this stringent requirement whenever justified. Thus, the rules, specifically Section 6 of Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, allows the reduction of the appeal bond 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 a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Still, the rule that the filing of a motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal is not absolute.[30] The Court may relax the rule under certain exceptional circumstances which include fundamental consideration of substantial justice, prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment and special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.[31] Indeed, in meritorious cases, the Court was propelled to relax the requirements relating to appeal bonds such as when there are valid issues raised in the appeal[32] and in the absence of any valid claims against the employer.[33] | |||||