This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-09-16 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| In Your Bus Lines vs. NLRC,[17] this Court excused the appellant for its failure to post the bond because it relied on the notice of the decision which, while stating the requirements for perfecting an appeal, did not mention that a bond must be filed. In Blancaflor vs. NLRC,[18] it was noted that the failure of appellant to post a bond was in part due to the failure of the Labor Arbiter to state the exact amount of back wages and separation pay due; thus, no basis exists for the computation of the amount of the bond to be filed. In Cabalan Pastulan Negrito Labor Association vs. NLRC,[19] this Court granted petitioner-appellant's plea to give due course to its appeal despite non-posting of a supersedeas bond on account of its insolvency and poverty. Petitioner-appellant is an association of Negritos performing trash sorting services in the American naval base in Subic Bay. Further, the existence of an employer-employee relationship between petitioner-appellant and private respondent was not established. In UERM-Memorial Medical Center vs. NLRC,[20] the appellant-employer was allowed to post a property bond in lieu of a cash or surety bond. In this case, the judgment involved more than P17M and its precipitate execution could adversely affect the existence of the employer medical center. It also appeared that the real property bond was worth more than P102M, hence, the posting of a real property bond was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Art. 223. | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This requirement is intended to discourage employers from using an appeal to delay or even evade their obligation to satisfy their employees' just and lawful claims.[27] Such a requirement has been relaxed in several cases, however, following the rule that substantial justice is better served by allowing appeals on the merits.[28] The policy of labor laws is to liberally construe rules of procedure[29] and settle controversies according to their merits, not to dismiss them by reason of technicalities.[30] | |||||