6/5/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In People's Broadcasting v. Secretary of the DOLE,[103] we ruled that the Deed of Assignment of savings made by the employer in favor of the employee validly served the purpose of an appeal bond. We said that the posting of the bond in this manner insured, during the period of appeal, against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish the monetary judgment in favor of the employee if the judgment is eventually affirmed.[104] In this case, there is no question that the NLRC accepted the appeal bond posted by petitioner through a current-dated check, as evidenced by Official Receipt No. 0701550 dated 20 April 2007.[105] That check was deposited to the bank account of the NLRC on 23 April 2007 without incident.[106] Furthermore, respondent has never disputed the sufficiency of the bond posted or petitioner's manifestation before us that "up to the present, the cash bond posted x x x is still in effect and remains in the coffers of the x x x NLRC and is susceptible to execution in the unfortunate event that this Petition fails."[107] To our mind, the appeal of petitioner has been perfected on time by virtue of its compliance with the appeal bond requirement. We note that its payment of the appeal bond through the issuance of a check was not even an issue before the NLRC. The latter had given due course to petitioner's appeal without any indication of having found any defect in the appeal bond posted. Nevertheless, we have had occasion to rule that the appeal bond requirement for judgments involving monetary awards may be relaxed in meritorious cases,[108] as in instances when a liberal interpretation would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits.[109] In the recent Balite v. SS Ventures International, Inc., [110] we recognized that there was a need "to strike a balance between the constitutional obligation of the state to afford protection to labor on the one hand, and the opportunity afforded to the employer to appeal on the other."[111] In this kind of undertaking, the Court is justified in giving employers the amplest opportunity to pursue their cause while ensuring that employees will receive the money judgment should the case be ultimately decided in their favor. We do not see why the same liberality - if at all needed - cannot be applied to this case in particular, in which it is clear that respondent's allegations of illegal dismissal and money claims are unfounded. In fine, the CA committed an error when it ascribed grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when the latter ruled in favor of petitioner. WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 29 May 2009 and Resolution dated 24 August 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 107378 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated 30 July 2008 issued by the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC CA No. 052466-07 (5), dismissing respondent's complaint, is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60760 14/20