This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-06-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| From an award of backwages and overtime pay by the labor arbiter in Rada v. NLRC,[49] petitioner therein failed to post the supersedeas bond. Nevertheless, the Court gave due course to the appeal for "the broader interests of justice and the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits." The amount of the supersedeas bond could not be determined and it was only in the NLRC order that the amount was specified and which bond, after extension granted by the NLRC, was timely filed by petitioner. | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| This ruling reiterated earlier pronouncements in Blancaflor v. NLRC,[38] Rada v. NLRC,[39] and YBL (Your Bus Line) v. NLRC,[40] in which the NLRC was cautioned to give Article 223 of the Labor Code, particularly the provisions on requiring a bond on appeals involving monetary awards, a liberal interpretation in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. | |||||
|
2005-04-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In YBL v. NLRC,[26] the appeal was interposed by the employers on 11 September 1989, or only six (6) days from the effectivity of the Interim Rules on Appeals which incorporated for the first time the appeal bond requirement imposed by Republic Act No. 6715, an amendatory law to the Labor Code. The Court therein considered the apparent fact that neither the counsel for the employer nor that for the employee was already aware of the then new requirement requiring the posting of a bond on appeal.[27] The same justification was cited with approval by the Court in Blancaflor v. NLRC,[28] and the same circumstance is likewise apparent in Rada v. NLRC.[29] | |||||