Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODENTO NAVARRO v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 151133 2008-06-30	AFP GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. NOEL MOLINA QUISUMBING, J.
The controversy before the Court involves more than just the mere application of the provisions of the Insurance Code to the factual circumstances. This instant case, after all, traces its roots to a labor controversy involving illegally dismissed workers. It thus entails the application of labor laws and regulations. Recall that the heart of the dispute is not an ordinary contract of property or life insurance, but an appeal bond required by both substantive and adjective law in appeals in labor disputes, specifically Article 223[24] of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715,[25] and Rule VI, Section 6[26] of the Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure. Said provisions mandate that in labor cases where the judgment appealed from involves a monetary award, the appeal may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company accredited by the NLRC.[27] The perfection of an appeal by an employer "only" upon the posting of a cash or surety bond clearly and categorically shows the intent of the lawmakers to make the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means by which an employer's appeal may be perfected.[28] Additionally, the filing of a cash or surety bond is a jurisdictional requirement in an appeal involving a money judgment to the NLRC.[29] In addition, Rule VI, Section 6 of the Revised NLRC Rules of Procedure is a contemporaneous construction of Article 223 by the NLRC. As an interpretation of a law by the implementing administrative agency, it is accorded great respect by this Court.[30] Note that Rule VI, Section 6 categorically states that the cash or surety bond posted in appeals involving monetary awards in labor disputes "shall be in effect until final disposition of the case." This could only be construed to mean that the surety bond shall remain valid and in force until finality and execution of judgment, with the resultant discharge of the surety company only thereafter, if we are to give teeth to the labor protection clause of the Constitution. To construe the provision any other way would open the floodgates to unscrupulous and heartless employers who would simply forego paying premiums on their surety bond in order to evade payment of the monetary judgment. The Court cannot be a party to any such iniquity.
	GR NO. 159372 2007-07-27	RONALDO NICOL v. FOOTJOY INDUSTRIAL CORP. CARPIO MORALES, J.
Citing several cases[16] in which the Supreme Court relaxed the requirement of a supersedeas bond to bring about a resolution of controversies on the merits, the appellate court held that respondents had substantially complied with the rule because both their Appeal and the Motion to Reduce Bond were filed seasonably, and the amount of P10 million, which was not minimal, was tendered with due explanation and justification therefor.
	GR NO. 163186 2007-02-28	EMERLITO F. AGUILA v. CARMEN R. BALDOVIZO QUISUMBING, J.
Nevertheless, while the Resolution dated August 13, 2001, correcting the March 7, 2000 Decision, stated that the name of Marlun Lisbos was inadvertently included in the dispositive portion, hence, said name was ordered stricken off, the ensuing Amended Decision rendered on August 13, 2001 is null and void because any amendment or alteration made which substantially affects the final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.[13] Although the rule that a judgment that becomes final and executory cannot be disturbed admits of exceptions, none of those are present in this case.
	GR No. 144118 2004-07-21	SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY v. WINSTON JOSEPH Z. CORDERO AND SPS. LUCIO CORDERO DAVIDE JR., J.
Settled is the rule that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such legal requirement is fatal.[21] Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.[22] In view of petitioners' failure to pay the docket fees on time and in the manner mandated by the Rules of Court, their appeal cannot be deemed perfected. The appealed decision, therefore, has become final and executory.[23]
	GR No. 120062 2000-06-08	WORKERS OF ANTIQUE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. NLRC PARDO, J.
The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Non-compliance therewith renders the judgment sought to appeal final and executory.[30] Article 223 of the Labor Code provides:"Article 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders."