Back to homepage
| Bacolod | Baguio | Cagayan de Oro | Cebu | Davao | Dumaguete | General Santos | Iloilo | Manila | Pampanga | Pangasinan | Zamboanga |
 
 
 
 

Google
Web
www.sunstar.com.ph

  Business
Cebu’s poor can avail of P100M loan ’til December
ADB reports low success of projects in RP, other small Pacific economies
Healthcare now among top industries - business exec
Dychangco: Dealing with death
Batuhan: Where are you going?
Liberality on posting appeal bond


Saturday, September 17, 2005
Liberality on posting appeal bond
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest


Petitioners Lydia Buenaobra and numerous others filed a petition in the Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Third Division, when it allowed private respondent, Fuji Zipper Manufacturing Corp., to post the mandated cash or surety bond four months after the filing of their memorandum of appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Was the dismissal justified?

Ruling: Yes.

The provision of Article 223 of the Labor Code requiring the posting of bond on appeals involving monetary awards must be given liberal interpretation, in line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If only to achieve substantial justice, strict observance of the reglamentary periods may be relaxed if warranted. The NLRC Third Division could not be said to have abused its discretion in requiring the posting of bond after it denied private respondents’ motion to be exempted from it.

It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of making the judgment final and executory. However, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of the parties. We have allowed appeals from the decisions of the labor arbiter to the NLRC, even if filed beyond the reglamentary period, in the interest of justice. The facts and circumstances of the instant case warrant liberality, considering the amount involved and the fact that petitioners already obtained a favorable judgment on Feb. 23, 1993 against their employer UNIX. (Lydia Buenaobra et. al. vs. Lim King Guan et. al., G.R. No. 150147, Jan. 20, 2004).

(September 17, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here.




ENETWORK HEADLINE
Formal probe set v. Cebu legislator, 8 others

ENETWORK NEWS
3 people swept away by flood; 1 dead, 2 missing
Government rejects protest v. US for 'spying'
Biz group demands P500T for aborted confab


[return to top] [home] [network page]


Sun.Star Network Online

LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE

SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND

Classified Power Ads

Past Issues



I © Copyright 2002 - 2005 Sun.Star Publishing, Inc. I Contact the website at onlinedeskatsunstardotcomdotph I