Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

YBL v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 195513 2015-06-22	MARLON BEDUYA v. ACE PROMOTION 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]
	GR No. 170099 2007-11-28	COLBY CONTSRUCTION v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thus, petitioners' reliance on Rosewood Processing, Inc. v NLRC,[31] YBL (Your Bus Line) v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[33] MERS Shoes Manufacturing, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[34] and Star Angel Handicraft v. National Labor Relations Commission,[35] is misplaced, if not totally misleading. The factual milieu of the said cases is entirely different in the case at bar, and does not bear even a sheer of semblance that would dissuade this Court from relaxing the rules.
	GR No. 147961 2007-09-07	FOREVER SECURITY v. ROMEO FLORES AZCUNA, J.
In Your Bus Lines v. NLRC,[44] 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.
	GR NO. 159372 2007-07-27	RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP. 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.
	GR NO. 156379 2005-09-16	EMMA CORDOVA v. KEYSA'S BOUTIQUE AND SPS. CRIS AND ELEANOR ALBARAN 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.
	GR NO. 155207 2005-04-29	WILHELMINA S. OROZCO v. FIFTH DIVISION OF CA 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]