This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-04-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The award as contained in the appealed 29 October 1993 decision did not state the exact amount to be awarded. In particular, while it may be assumed, as stated in the decision subject of this motion, the award be based on the P300.00 per column/article basis, this is not clear in the decision which likewise mentioned an award for thirteenth (13th) month pay and service incentive leave pay. Noteworthy is the fact that the complainant, not being an employee, was not being paid a fixed salary. Hence, herein respondents-appellants requested in their memorandum on appeal that the Commission fixes (sic) the amount of the bond, if it finds the same necessary in exceptional cases like the present case, to wit: "xxx Respondents-appellants however manifest that they are able and willing to post a bond that this Commission may fix if the latter finds it necessary." (Notice and Memorandum on Appeal dated 24 December 1993, p. 7).[32] (Emphasis in the original) In the case of NFLU v. Ladrido III,[33] this Court postulated that "private respondents cannot be expected to post such appeal bond equivalent to the amount of the monetary award when the amount thereof was not included in the decision of the labor arbiter."[34] The computation of the amount awarded to petitioner not having been clearly stated in the decision of the labor arbiter, private respondents had no basis for determining the amount of the bond to be posted. | |||||