5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Compared with LA Aurellano’s award of P800,875.00 to Binalla, we find the initial bond posted by Princess Joy reasonable, considering that it is questioning the unusually large amount of the awarded damages. Significantly, the agency posted an additional bond as required by the NLRC in its May 12, 2006 order,[30] thus, bringing the amount equal to the labor arbiter’s monetary award. We take this occasion to impress upon the parties that the Court takes a liberal approach on the appeal bond requirement in “the broader interest of justice and with the desired objective of deciding cases on the merits.”[31] In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista,[32] the Court reiterated its call for a liberal application of the law and the rules on the appeal bond requirement “with an eye on the interest of substantial justice and the merits of the case.”[33] In this light, the CA committed a reversible error in imputing grave abuse of discretion on the NLRC for acting on the motion to reduce bond even beyond the ten-day appeal period. The merits of the case We now proceed to the substantive aspect of the case which the CA did not pass upon in light of its ruling that the NLRC had lost jurisdiction over the labor dispute for Princess Joy’s failure to perfect its appeal. The CA thus was unable to determine whether the NLRC ruling on the merits was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Under this situation, do we now remand the case to the CA for a review of the NLRC’s disposition of the merits of the case or conduct the review ourselves, considering that the case is already almost a decade old counted from the filing of the complaint?[34] In the course of determining the presence of grave abuse of discretion – a recourse the CA failed to undertake – we believe we can and now should rule on the merits to lay the issues posed finally to rest. Incidentally, in Metro Eye Security, Inc. v. Salsona, [35] we emphasized that a remand should be avoided if the ends of justice would not be served. In Intertranz Container Lines, Inc. v. Bautista,[36] we expressed the same concern over a more than five-year old illegal dismissal case. As matters now stand, a remand would definitely be a disservice to the ends of justice as it would only prolong the disposition of the case. Significantly, we note that Princess Joy filed a Comment[37] on Binalla’s petition for certiorari before the CA.[38] Thus, the issues have been joined and are ready for adjudication and should forthwith be resolved in the interest of speedy justice.[39] Is Princess Joy liable under the complaint? After an examination of the facts, we find, contrary to the NLRC ruling, substantial evidence showing that Binalla was employed by Al Adwani in Saudi Arabia through a fraudulent scheme or arrangement, called “reprocessing” or otherwise, participated in by Princess Joy and CBM, as well as by Paguio and Lateo (who worked on the processing and documentation of Binalla’s deployment papers to Al Adwani). Although the scheme enabled Binalla to be employed overseas, his two-year employment was marred from the start by violations of the law on overseas employment. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57076 6/12