FACTS: The LA ordered petitioner to pay respondents the sum of Php 655, 866. 41. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC and a motion for the reduction of the supersedeas bond to Php 100, 000 and thereafter posted a cash bond of Php 100, 000. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for insufficiency of the bond. Petitioner said the Star Angel doctrine should apply where the appeal may be perfected after that period upon posting of a cash or surely bond. However, the NLRC disagreed stating that in this case, the petitioner did not file a motion for reduction of bond within the period but instead posted a bond in an amount not equivalent to the monetary award.
ISSUE: W/N there was a motion for reduction filed within the reglementary period.
HELD: Yes. Basically, that petitioner did file a motion within the period is supported by the following:
1. The motion for reduction was stamped with the “received” rubber stamp marker of the NLRC and indicated the date of filing as 6/7/96.
2. Both the motion and the appeal memorandum were sent to respondents in one envelope and sent by registered mail under Reg. Receipt 3576.
3. The same person notarized both the motion and the appeal on the same date.
4. On the last page of their respondents stated that “the motion for reduction should be founded on meritorious grounds.” This was found by the SC to be an implied admittance of the receipt of the motion. Besides, respondents could just as well have stated in their comments that no motion was filed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment