JMM Promotions v.

Case No. 136 G.R. No. 109835 (November 22, 1993) Chapter VI, Page 251, Footnote No. 21

FACTS: JMM Promotions paid license fee amounting to P30, 000 and posted a cash bond of P100, 000 and a surety bond of P50,000, as required by the POEA Rules. When JMM Promotions appealed to NLRC regarding a decision rendered by POEA, the NLRC dismissed the petition for failure to post the required appeal bond as required by Art. 223 of the Labor Code. ISSUE: Is JMM Promotions still required to post the required appeal bond, as required by Art. 223 of the Labor Code, considering it has already posted a cash bond and surety bond, as required by the POEA? HELD: Yes. The POEA Rules regarding monetary appeals are clear. A reading of the POEA Rules shows that, in addition to the cash and surety bonds and the escrow money, an appeal bond in an amount equivalent to the monetary award is required to perfect an appeal from a decision of the POEA. Basbacio v. Office of the Secretary, Dept. of Justice
Case No. G.R. No. 109445 (November 7, 1994)

FACTS: RA 7309, among other things, provides for compensation of persons unjustly accused, convicted, and imprisoned. Petitioner and his son-in-law Balderrama were charged with murder and frustrated murder for killing Boyon and wounding his wife and son, due to a land dispute and thus imprisoned. However, on appeal to the CA, Petitioner was acquitted on the ground that conspiracy between him and his son-inlaw was not proven. What was proven was that he was at the scene of the crime with Petitioner when the shooting happened and left the place with his son-in-law. Petitioner claims he was unjustly accused and is entitled to compensation. ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is entitled to compensation pursuant to RA 7309. HELD: No, he is not. For one to be unjustly accused one must be wrongly accused from the very beginning, unjustly convicted (when a judge knowingly and deliberately rendered an unjust judgment, whimsical and capricious devoid of any basis for judgment) and imprisoned. In the case at bar, Petitioner was acquitted because the prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Petitioner was guilty. Thus, he does not fall under RA 7309.

An exception to this is when the reinstatement may be inadmissible due to strained relations between the employer and the employee. Respondent Salazar filed a complaint for illegal suspension and for other damages. Petitioner merely insinuated that since Respondent Salazar had a special relationship with Saldivar. On appeal. justify her dismissal. 2. thereby. HELD: The Labor Code clearly provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement and to his full back wages.3 FACTS: Petitioner placed Respondent Salazar under preventive suspension because it appeared that she had full knowledge of the loss and whereabouts of an air conditioner that Delfin Saldivar had stolen from the company but failed to inform her employer. . 1992) Chapter IV. she might have had direct knowledge of Saldivar s questionable activities. NLRC and Salazar Case No. the Respondent Court affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter with respect to the reinstatement of Private Respondent but limited back wages to 2 years and deleted award for moral damages. Moreover. No.Globe-Mackay v. Page 124. W/N the Labor Tribunal committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Respondent Salazar. ISSUE: 1. The position of Private Respondent as systems analyst is not one that may be characterized as such. Footnote No. 112 G. W/N there existed independent legal grounds to hold Respondent Salazar answerable as well and.R. 82511 (March 3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful