This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the respondents' claim, the issue of the appeal bond's validity may be raised for the first time on appeal since its proper filing is a jurisdictional requirement.[22] The requirement that the appeal bond should be issued by an accredited bonding company is mandatory and jurisdictional. The rationale of requiring an appeal bond is to discourage the employers from using an appeal to delay or evade the employees' just and lawful claims. It is intended to assure the workers that they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer's appeal.[23] | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
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. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety bond is mandatory. And the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional.[39] To extend the period of the appeal is to delay the case, a circumstance which would give the employer the chance to wear out the efforts and meager resources of the worker to the point that the latter is constrained to give up for less than what is due him.[40] As ratiocinated in the case of Viron Garments Mftg. v. NLRC:[41] | |||||