Back

Kenji Okada Vs. Security Pacific Assurance Corporation

KENJI OKADA, Petitioner, versus SECURITY PACIFIC ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 164344 | 2008-12-23

D E C I S I O N


REYES, R.T., J.:

"NITO o ou mono wa itto o mo ezu,"[1] says a Japanese proverb. If you run after two hares, you would catch neither. Kung hahabol ka sa dalawang kuneho, di mo mahuhuli ang isa man nito.

It would be more prudent - as it is proper - for petitioner to run after his employer to satisfy his money claims rather than stubbornly insist on an invalid bond.

This exhortation is apt in this petition for review on certiorari of the Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 77451.[3] The CA set aside the Labor Arbiter's Order dated March 28, 2003 and annulled the writ of execution dated October 15,...