Ang Tibay vs Court of Industrial Relations

on November 6, 2010

Due Process Admin Bodies CIR

TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the lay off of members of National Labor Union Inc. NLU averred that Toribios act is not valid as it is not within the CBA. That there are two labor unions in Ang Tibay; NLU and National Workers Brotherhood. That NWB is dominated by Toribio hence he favors it over NLU. That NLU wishes for a new trial as they were able to come up with new evidence/documents that they were not able to obtain before as they were inaccessible and they were not able to present it before in the CIR. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a due process of law. HELD: The SC ruled that there should be a new trial in favor of NLU. The SC ruled that all administrative bodies cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process. They are; (1) The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his

own case and submit evidence in support thereof. (2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence

tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a

necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence must be

substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in

the record and disclosed to the parties affected. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own

independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.

(7)

The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a

manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the vario issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. ANG TIBAY and NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC. 27 February 1940 | Laurel Decision on motion for reconsideration and on motion for new trial Remember this case for The cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings Characterization of the CIR Facts An MfR was filed by the Solicitor-General on behalf of respondent CIR. National Labor Union on the other hand prays for the remanding of the case to CIR for a new trial. Ang Tibay filed an opposition for both the motion for reconsideration of CIR and the motion for a new trial by the National Labor Union (NLU). Toribio Teodoro owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. NLU avers that employer Toribio Teodoro (of the National Workers Brotherhood [NWB] of Ang Tibay) made a false claim that there was a shortage of leather soles in Ang Tibay, making it necessary for him to lay off workers. NLU alleges that such claim was unsupported by the Bureau of Customs records and the accounts of native dealers of leather. Such was just a scheme adopted to discharge all the members of the NLU from work. Hence, they say that Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against NLU and unjustly favoring NWB. As regards the exhibits attached to this case, NLU says that these are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the CIR. In addition, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein. Resolution and Disposition The court observed that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the NWB, the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate a conclusion of law [see Primary cardinal requirements below]. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a new trial should commence giving the movant the opportunity to present new evidence. MfR denied. Motion for new trial granted. Case remanded to CIR. Characterization of CIR Special court whose functions are stated in CA No. 103 More of an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system Function is more active, affirmative, dynamic

Exercises judicial / quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees

 Has jurisdiction over the entire PH re: matters concerning employer-employee, landlordtenant/farm-laborer relations Can take cognizance of industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout provided that The number of employees involved exceeds 30 Such dispute is submitted to the Court by the Labor Sec. or by any / both of the parties to the controversy and certified by Labor Sec. as proper to be dealt with by the court Investigates and studies all pertinent facts related to the industry concerned when directed by the PH President There is a mingling of executive and judicial functions, a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers In Goseco v. CIR, the Court said that CA 103 requires CIR to act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that CIR can entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.

Cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings 1. Right to a hearing, including the right to present ones own case and submit evidence in support thereof 2. 3. 4. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented Decision must have something to support itself Evidence must be substantial 1. It must be relevant as a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion 2. The rules of evidence shall not be controlling so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order 3. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does NOT constitute substantial evidence 5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 1. On boards of inquiry 1. They may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case 2. Their report and decision are only advisory 3. CIR may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute to a board of inquiry, fiscal, justice of the peace, any public official but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself or any of its powers

6. CIR or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at the decision 7. CIR should render its decision in such a manner that the parties can know the issues involved and the reasons for the decisions rendered.

Facts: Ang Tibay was a manufacturer of rubber slippers. There was a shortage of leather soles, and it was necessary to temporarily lay off members of the National Labor Union. According to the Union however, this was merely a scheme to systematically terminate the employees from work, and that the shortage of soles is unsupported. It claims that Ang Tibay is guilty of ULP because the owner, Teodoro, is discriminating against the National Labor Union, and unjustly favoring the National Workers Brotherhood, which was allegedly sympathetic to the employer. The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent Court of Industrial Relationsand to the motion for new trial of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc. Issue: Whether or not special courts like Court of Industrial Relations should observe due process. Held: Yes. The Court of Industrial Relations is not

narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and Commonwealth Act No. 103 requires it to act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at

a decision. The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.