EN BANC

" 4. There is no gainsaying that the constitutional right of the people to be

informed on matters of public concern, as in the instant cases, can best be
recognized, served and satisfied by allowing the live radio and television coverage

[A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC. June 29, 2001]

RE:

REQUEST

RADIO-TV

COVERAGE

OF

THE

of the concomitant court proceedings.

TRIAL

IN

THE

SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMER

PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
HERNANDO
PILIPINAS,

PEREZ,
CESAR

KAPISANAN
SARINO,

NG

RENATO

MGA

BRODKASTER

CAYETANO

and

NG

ATTY.

RICARDO ROMULO, petitioners, vs. JOSEPH E. ESTRADA and

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositors.

"5. Moreover, the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also
serve the dual purpose of ensuring the desired transparency in the
administration of justice in order to disabuse the minds of the supporters of the
past regime of any and all unfounded notions, or ill-perceived attempts on the
part of the present dispensation, to 'railroad' the instant criminal cases against
the Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada." [4]
Public interest, the petition further averred, should be evident bearing in mind

DECISION

the right of the public to vital information affecting the nation.

In effect, the petition seeks a re-examination of the 23rd October 1991

VITUG, J.:

resolution of this Court in a case for libel filed by then President Corazon C.
The travails of a deposed President continue. The Sandiganbayan reels to

Aquino. The resolution read:

start hearing the criminal charges against Mr. Joseph E. Estrada. Media seeks
to cover the event via live television and live radio broadcast and endeavors this

"The records of the Constitutional Commission are bereft of discussion regarding

Court to allow it that kind of access to the proceedings.

the subject of cameras in the courtroom. Similarly, Philippine courts have not
had the opportunity to rule on the question squarely.

On 13 March 2001, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP),

an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio

While we take notice of the September 1990 report of the United States Judicial

networks throughout the country, sent a letter[1]requesting this Court to allow live

Conference Ad Hoc Committee on Cameras in the Courtroom, still the current

media coverage of the anticipated trial of the plunder and other criminal cases

rule obtaining in the Federal Courts of the United States prohibit the presence of

filed against former President Joseph E. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in

television cameras in criminal trials. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

order "to assure the public of full ransparency in the proceedings of an

Procedure forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial

unprecedented case in our history."

proceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. A

[2]

The request was seconded by Mr. Cesar N.

Sarino in his letter of 05 April 2001 to the Chief Justice and, still later, by

trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all

Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo.

concerned and should not be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it

deprives the court of the dignity which pertains to it and departs from the orderly

On 17 April 2001, the Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez

formally filed the instant petition,

[3]

and serious quest for truth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated.

submitting the following exegesis:

"Courts do not discriminate against radio and television media by forbidding the

"3. The foregoing criminal cases involve the previous acts of the former highest
official of the land, members of his family, his cohorts and, therefore, it cannot be
over emphasized that the prosecution thereof, definitely involves a matter of
public concern and interest, or a matter over which the entire citizenry has the
right to know, be informed and made aware of.

broadcasting or televising of a trial while permitting the newspaper reporter

access to the courtroom, since a television or news reporter has the same
privilege, as the news reporter is not permitted to bring his typewriter or printing
press into the courtroom.

"In Estes vs. Texas, the United States Supreme Court held that television

avoid miscarriage of justice, the Court resolved to PROHIBIT live radio and

coverage of judicial proceedings involves an inherent denial of the due process

television coverage of court proceedings. Video footages of court hearings for

rights of a criminal defendant. Voting 5-4, the Court through 'Mr. Justice Clark,

news purposes shall be limited and restricted as above indicated."

identified four (4) areas of potential prejudice which might arise from the impact
of the cameras on the jury, witnesses, the trial judge and the defendant. The
decision in part pertinently stated:

Admittedly,

the

press

is

mighty

catalyst

in

awakening

public

consciousness, and it has become an important instrument in the quest for

truth.[5] Recent history exemplifies media's invigorating presence, and its

"'Experience likewise has established the prejudicial effect of telecasting on

contribution to society is quite impressive. The Court, just recently, has taken

witnesses. Witnesses might be frightened, play to the camera, or become

judicial notice of the enormous effect of media in stirring public sentience during

nervous. They are subject to extraordinary out-of-court influences which might

the impeachment trial, a partly judicial and partly political exercise, indeed the

affect their testimony. Also, telecasting not only increases the trial judge's

most-watched program in the boob-tubes during those times, that would soon

responsibility to avoid actual prejudice to the defendant, it may as well affect his

culminate in EDSA II.

own performance. Judges are human beings also and are subject to the same
psychologjcal reactions as laymen. For the defendant, telecasting is a form of
mental harassment and subjects him to excessive public exposure and distracts
him from the effective presentation of his defense.

The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the

weighing out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the
right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the
accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to

'The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally or inadvertently

control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. [6]

can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes of the public.'
When these rights race against one another, jurisprudence [7] tells us that
"Representatives of the press have no special standing to apply for a writ of

the right of the accused must be preferred to win.

mandate to compel a court to permit them to attend a trial, since within the
courtroom, a reporter's constitutional rights are no greater than those of any
other member of the public. Massive intrusion of representatives of the news
media into the trial itself can so alter or destroy the constitutionally necessary
judicial atmosphere and decorum that the requirements of impartiality imposed
by due process of law are denied the defendant and a defendant in a criminal
proceeding should not be forced to run a gauntlet of reporters and photographers
each time he enters or leaves the courtroom.

With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very
life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused
receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a
verdict that would come only after the presentation of credible evidence testified
to by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure, whether open or
subtle, in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract from its
basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper influence, [8] and decreed by a
judge with an unprejudiced mind, unbridled by running emotions or passions.

"Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant's right to due process as well
as to the fair and orderly administration of justice, and considering further that
the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information may be served
and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and
television coverage of court proceedings shall not be allowed. Video footages of
court hearings for news purposes shall be restricted and limited to shots of the
courtroom, the judicial officers, the parties and their counsel taken prior to the
commencement of official proceedings. No video shots or photographs shall be
permitted during the trial proper.
"Accordingly, in order to protect the parties right to due process, to prevent the
distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the last analysis, to

Due process guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the

contrary is proved in a trial that is not lifted above its individual settings nor
made an object of public's attention [9] and where the conclusions reached are
induced not by any outside force or influence [10] but only by evidence and
argument given in open court, where fitting dignity and calm ambiance is
demanded.
Witnesses and judges may very well be men and women of fortitude, able to
thrive in hardy climate, with every reason to presume firmness of mind and
resolute endurance, but it must also be conceded that "television can work
profound changes in the behavior of the people it focuses on." [11] Even while it

may be difficult to quantify the influence, or pressure that media can bring to

This Court, in the instance [19] already mentioned, citing Estes vs. Texas,

bear on them directly and through the shaping of public opinion, it is a fact,

[20]

nonetheless, that, indeed, it does so in so many ways and in varying

proceedings as an inherent denial of due process rights of an accused, also

the United States Supreme Court holding the television coverage of judicial

degrees. The conscious or unconscious effect that such coverage may have on

identified the following as being likely prejudices:

the testimony of witnesses and the decision of judges cannot be evaluated but, it
can likewise be said, it is not at all unlikely for a vote of guilt or innocence to
yield to it.[12] It might be farcical to build around them an impregnable armor
against the influence of the most powerful media of public opinion. [13]

"1. The potential impact of television x x x is perhaps of the greatest significance.

x x x. From the moment the trial judge announces that a case will be televised it
becomes a cause celebre. The whole community, x x x becomes interested in all
the morbid details surrounding it. The approaching trial immediately assumes

To say that actual prejudice should first be present would leave to near

an important status in the public press and the accused is highly publicized

nirvana the subtle threats to justice that a disturbance of the mind so

along with the offense with which he is charged. Every juror carries with him

indispensable to the calm and deliberate dispensation of justice can create.

into the jury box these solemn facts and thus increases the chance of prejudice

[14]

The effect of television may escape the ordinary means of proof, but it is not

that is present in every criminal case. x x x

far-fetched for it to gradually erode our basal conception of a trial such as we

know it now.[15]

"2. The quality of the testimony in criminal trials will often be impaired. The
impact upon a witness of the knowledge that he is being viewed by a vast

An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him,

audience is simply incalculable. Some may be demoralized and frightened, some

more than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in

cocky and given to overstatement; memories may falter, as with anyone speaking

balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not

publicly, and accuracy of statement may be severely undermined. x x x. Indeed,

be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete

the mere fact that the trial is to be televised might render witnesses reluctant to

conclaves of long ago. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it

appear and thereby impede the trial as well as the discovery of the truth.

only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in
the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial
process. In the constitutional sense, a courtroom should have enough facilities
for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings, not too small
as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial
participants from their proper functions, who shall then be totally free to report
what they have observed during the proceedings. [16]
The courts recognize the constitutionally embodied freedom of the press
and the right to public information. It also approves of media's exalted power to
provide the most accurate and comprehensive means of conveying the
proceedings to the public and in acquainting the public with the judicial process
in action; nevertheless, within the courthouse, the overriding consideration is
still the paramount right of the accused to due process [17] which must never be
allowed to suffer diminution in its constitutional proportions. Justice Clark
thusly pronounced, "while a maximum freedom must be allowed the press in
carrying out the important function of informing the public in a democratic

"3. A major aspect of the problem is the additional responsibilities the presence
of television places on the trial judge. His job is to make certain that the accused
receives a fair trial. This most difficult task requires his undivided attention. x x
x
4. Finally, we cannot ignore the impact of courtroom television on the
defendant. Its presence is a form of mental - if not physical-harassment,
resembling a police line-up or the third degree. The inevitable close-up of his
gestures and expressions during the ordeal of his trial might well transgress his
personal sensibilities, his dignity, and his ability to concentrate on the
proceedings before him - sometimes the difference between life and death dispassionately, freely and without the distraction of wide public surveillance. A
defendant on trial for a specific crime is entitled to his day in court, not in a
stadium, or a city or nationwide arena. The heightened public clamor resulting
from radio and television coverage will inevitably result in prejudice."

society, its exercise must necessarily be subject to the maintenance of absolute

fairness in the judicial process."[18]

In his concurring opinion in Estes, Mr. Justice Harlan opined that live
television and radio coverage could have mischievous potentialities for intruding
upon the detached atmosphere that should always surround the judicial process.
[21]

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, in its Resolution of 16 April 2001,

expressed its own concern on the live television and radio coverage of the

required trial judges to exclude the press and the public from the courtroom
during the testimony of a minor victim of certain sexual offenses.

criminal trials of Mr. Estrada; to paraphrase: Live television and radio coverage
can negate the rule on exclusion of witnesses during the hearings intended to
assure a fair trial; at stake in the criminal trial is not only the life and liberty of
the accused but the very credibility of the Philippine criminal justice system, and
live television and radio coverage of the trial could allow the "hooting throng" to
arrogate unto themselves the task of judging the guilt of the accused, such that
the verdict of the court will be acceptable only if popular; and live television and
radio coverage of the trial will not subserve the ends of justice but will only
pander to the desire for publicity of a few grandstanding lawyers.
It may not be unlikely, if the minority position were to be adopted, to see
protracted delays in the prosecution of cases before trial courts brought about by
petitions seeking a declaration of mistrial on account of undue publicity and
assailing a court a quo's action either allowing or disallowing live media coverage
of the court proceedings because of supposed abuse of discretion on the part of
the judge.

Justice Stewart, in Chandler vs. Florida,[25] where two police officers

charged with burglary sought to overturn their conviction before the US Supreme
Court upon the ground that the television coverage had infringed their right to
fair trial, explained that "the constitutional violation perceived by the Estes Court
did not stem from the physical disruption that might one day disappear with
technological advances in the television equipment but inhered, rather, in the
hypothesis that the mere presence of cameras and recording devices might have
an effect on the trial participants prejudicial to the accused."[26]
Parenthetically, the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts
do not allow live television and radio coverage of their proceedings.
The sad reality is that the criminal cases presently involved are of great
dimensions so involving as they do a former President of the Republic. It is
undeniable that these cases have twice become the nation's focal points in the

En passant, the minority would view the ponencia as having modified the
case law on the matter. Just to the contrary, the Court effectively reiterated its
standing resolution of 23 October 1991. Until 1991, the Court had yet to
establish the case law on the matter, and when it did in its 23 rd October
resolution, it confirmed, in disallowing live television and radio coverage of court
proceedings, that "the records of the Constitutional Commission (were) bereft of
discussion regarding the subject of cameras in the courtroom" and that
"Philippine courts (had) not (theretofore) had the opportunity to rule on the
question squarely."

two conflicting phenomena of EDSA II and EDSA III where the magnitude of the
events has left a still divided nation. Must these events be invited anew and risk
the relative stability that has thus far been achieved? The transcendental events
in our midst do not allow us to, turn a blind eye to yet another possible
extraordinary case of mass action being allowed to now creep into even the
business of the courts in the dispensation of justice under a rule of law. At the
very least, a change in the standing rule of the court contained in its resolution
of 23 October 1991 may not appear to be propitious.
Unlike other government offices, courts do not express the popular will of

But were the cases decided by the U.S. courts and cited in the minority
opinion really in point?

the people in any sense which, instead, are tasked to only adjudicate justiciable
controversies on the basis of what alone is submitted before them. [27] A trial is not
a free trade of ideas. Nor is a competing market of thoughts the known test truth
in a courtroom.[28]

In Nebraska Press Association vs. Stewart,

[22]

the Nebraska State trial

judge issued an order restraining news media from publishing accounts of

The Court is not all that unmindful of recent technological and scientific

confession or admissions made by the accused or facts strongly implicating

advances but to chance forthwith the life or liberty of any person in a hasty to

him. The order was struck down. In Richmond Newspaper, Inc., vs. Virginia,

bid to use and apply them, even before ample safety nets are provided and the

[23]

the trial judge closed the courtroom to the public and all participants except

concerns heretofore expressed are aptly addressed, is a price too high to pay.

witnesses when they testify. The judge was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court
which ruled that criminal trials were historically open. In Globe Newspaper vs.
Superior Court,[24] the US Supreme Court voided a Massachusetts law that

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

EN BANC

The Court has considered the arguments of the parties on this important
issue and, after due deliberation, finds no reason to alter or in any way modify its
decision prohibiting live or real time broadcast by radio or television of the trial of

[A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC. September 13, 2001]

the former president. By a vote of nine (9) to six (6) of its members, [1] the Court

RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN THE

SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST FORMER
PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA
SECRETARY

OF

JUSTICE

HERNANDO

ATTY.

RICARDO

In lieu of live TV and radio coverage of the trial, the Court, by the vote of
eight (8) Justices,[2] has resolved to order the audio-visual recording of the trial

PEREZ,

KAPISANAN

NG

MGA

BRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS, CESAR SARINO, RENATO CAYETANO,

and

denies the motion for reconsideration of the Secretary of Justice.

ROMULO, petitioners,

vs. JOSEPH

E.

ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositors.

for documentary purposes. Seven (7) Justices[3]vote against the audio-visual

recording of the trial.
What follows is the opinion of the majority.
Considering the significance of the trial before the Sandiganbayan of former

RESOLUTION

President Estrada and the importance of preserving the records thereof, the
Court believes that there

MENDOZA, J.:
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision denying petitioners
request for permission to televise and broadcast live the trial of former President
Estrada before the Sandiganbayan. The motion was filed by the Secretary of
Justice, as one of the petitioners, who argues that there is really no conflict
between the right of the people to public information and the freedom of the
press, on the one hand, and, on the other, the right of the accused to a fair trial;
that if there is a clash between these rights, it must be resolved in favor of the
right of the people and the press because the people, as the repository of
sovereignty, are entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a
safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as instruments for the
pursuit of selfish interests.
On the other hand, former President Joseph E. Estrada reiterates his
objection to the live TV and radio coverage of his trial on the ground that its
allowance will violate the sub judice rule and that, based on his experience with
the impeachment trial, live media coverage will only pave the way for so-called
"expert commentary" which can trigger massive demonstrations aimed at
pressuring the Sandiganbayan to render a decision one way or the other. Mr.
Estrada contends that the right of the people to information may be served
through other means less distracting, degrading, and prejudicial than live TV
and radio coverage.

should

be an

audio-visual recording of

the

proceedings. The recordings will not be for live or real time broadcast but for
documentary purposes. Only later will they be available for public showing, after
the Sandiganbayan shall have promulgated its decision in every case to which the
recording pertains. The master film shall be deposited in the National Museum
and the Records Management and Archives Office for historical preservation and
exhibition pursuant to law.[4]
For

the

purpose

of

recording

the

proceedings,

cameras

will

be

inconspicuously installed in the courtroom and the movement of TV crews will be

regulated, consistent with the dignity and solemnity of the proceedings. The trial
shall be recorded in its entirety, except such portions thereof as the
Sandiganbayan may decide should not be held public pursuant to Rule 119, 21
of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. No comment shall be included in the
documentary except annotations which may be necessary to explain certain
scenes which are depicted. The audio-visual recordings shall be made under the
supervision and control of the Sandiganbayan or its Division as the case may be.
There are several reasons for such televised recording. First, the hearings
are of historic significance. They are an affirmation of our commitment to the
rule that "the King is under no man, but he is under God and the law." (Quod
Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et Lege.) Second, the Estrada cases
involve matters of vital concern to our people who have a fundamental right to
know how their government is conducted. This right can be enhanced by audiovisual presentation. Third, audio-visual presentation is essential for the
education and civic training of the people.

Above all, there is the need to keep audio-visual records of the hearings for

No one can prevent the making of a movie based on the trial. But, at least,

documentary purposes. The recordings will be useful in preserving the essence

if a documentary record is made of the proceedings, any movie that may later be

of the proceedings in a way that the cold print cannot quite do because it cannot

produced can be checked for its accuracy against such documentary and any

capture the sights and sounds of events. They will be primarily for the use of

attempt to distort the truth can thus be averted.

appellate courts in the event a review of the proceedings, rulings, or decisions of

the Sandiganbayan is sought or becomes necessary. The accuracy of the
transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial can be checked by
reference to the tapes.
On the other hand, by delaying the release of the tapes for broadcast,
concerns that those taking part in the proceedings will be playing to the cameras
and will thus be distracted from the proper performance of their roles whether
as counsel, witnesses, court personnel, or judges will be allayed. The
possibility that parallel trials before the bar of justice and the bar of public
opinion may jeopardize, or even prevent, the just determination of the cases can
be minimized. The possibility that judgment will be rendered by the popular
tribunal before the court of justice can render its own will be avoided.
At the same time, concerns about the regularity and fairness of the trial which, it may be assumed, is the concern of those opposed to, as much as of
those in favor of, televised trials - will be addressed since the tapes will not be
released for public showing until after the decision of the cases by the
Sandiganbayan. By delaying the release of the tapes, much of the problem posed
by real time TV and radio broadcast will be avoided.
Thus, many important purposes for preserving the record of the trials can
be served by audio-visual recordings without impairing the right of the accused
to a fair trial.
Nor is the right of privacy of the accused a bar to the production of such
documentary. In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, [5] this Court set aside a

Indeed, a somewhat similar proposal for documentary recording of

celebrated cases or causes clbres was made way back in 1971 by Paul Freund
of the Harvard Law School. As he explained:
In fairness let me refer to an American experience many of my lay friends
found similarly moving. An educational television network filmed a trial in
Denver of a Black Panther leader on charges of resisting arrest, and broadcast
the document in full, in four installments, several months after the case was
concluded - concluded incidentally, with a verdict of acquittal.
No one could witness the trial without a feeling of profound respect for the
painstaking way in which the truth was searched for, for the ways whereby law
copes with uncertainties and ambiguities through presumptions and burden of
proof, and the sense of gravity with which judge and jury carried out their
responsibilities.
I agree in general with the exclusion of television from the courtroom, for
the familiar good reasons. And yet the use of television at a trial for
documentary purposes, not for the broadcast of live news, and with the
safeguards of completeness and consent, is an educational experiment that I
would be prepared to welcome. Properly safeguarded and with suitable
commentary, the depiction of an actual trial is an agency of enlightenment that
could have few equals in its impact on the public understanding.
Understanding of our legal process, so rarely provided by our educational
system, is now a desperate need.[7]

lower court's injunction restraining the filming of "Four Day Revolution," a

documentary film depicting, among other things, the role of then Minister of
National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile in the 1986 EDSA people power. This Court
held: "A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as
permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be
elicited from him or to be published about him constitute matters of a public
character."[6]

Professor Freund's observation is as valid today as when it was made thirty

years ago. It is perceptive for its recognition of the serious risks posed to the fair
administration of justice by live TV and radio broadcasts, especially when
emotions are running high on the issues stirred by a case, while at the same time
acknowledging

the

necessity

of

keeping

audio-visual

recordings

of

the

proceedings of celebrated cases, for public information and exhibition, after

passions have subsided.

WHEREFORE, an audio-visual recording of the trial of former President

Estrada before the Sandiganbayan is hereby ordered to be made, for the account

Claro M. Recto for petitioner "Ang Tibay".

Jose M. Casal for National Workers' Brotherhood.

of the Sandiganbayan, under the following conditions: (a) the trial shall be
recorded in its entirety, excepting such portions thereof as the Sandiganbayan
may determine should not be held public under Rule 119, 21 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure; (b) cameras shall be installed inconspicuously inside the
courtroom and the movement of TV crews shall be regulated consistent with the
dignity and solemnity of the proceedings; (c) the audio-visual recordings shall be
made for documentary purposes only and shall be made without comment except
such annotations of scenes depicted therein as may be necessary to explain

LAUREL, J.:
The Solicitor-General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations in
the above-entitled case has filed a motion for reconsideration and moves that, for
the reasons stated in his motion, we reconsider the following legal conclusions of
the majority opinion of this Court:

them; (d) the live broadcast of the recordings before the Sandiganbayan shall

1. Que un contrato de trabajo, asi individual como colectivo, sin termino

have rendered its decision in all the cases against the former President shall be

fijo de duracion o que no sea para una determinada, termina o bien por

prohibited under pain of contempt of court and other sanctions in case of

voluntad de cualquiera de las partes o cada vez que ilega el plazo fijado

violations of the prohibition; (e) to ensure that the conditions are observed, the

para el pago de los salarios segun costumbre en la localidad o cunado

audio-visual recording of the proceedings shall be made under the supervision

se termine la obra;

and control of the Sandiganbayan or its Division concerned and shall be made
pursuant to rules promulgated by it; and (f) simultaneously with the release of

2. Que los obreros de una empresa fabril, que han celebrado contrato,

the audio-visual recordings for public broadcast, the original thereof shall be

ya individual ya colectivamente, con ell, sin tiempo fijo, y que se han

deposited in the National Museum and the Records Management and Archives

visto obligados a cesar en sus tarbajos por haberse declarando paro

Office for preservation and exhibition in accordance with law.

forzoso en la fabrica en la cual tarbajan, dejan de ser empleados u

obreros de la misma;

SO ORDERED.

3. Que un patrono o sociedad que ha celebrado un contrato colectivo de

Republic of the Philippines

trabajo con sus osbreros sin tiempo fijo de duracion y sin ser para una

SUPREME COURT

obra determiminada y que se niega a readmitir a dichos obreros que

Manila

cesaron como consecuencia de un paro forzoso, no es culpable de

practica injusta in incurre en la sancion penal del articulo 5 de la Ley

EN BANC

No. 213 del Commonwealth, aunque su negativa a readmitir se deba a

que dichos obreros pertenecen a un determinado organismo obrero,

G.R. No. L-46496

puesto que tales ya han dejado deser empleados suyos por terminacion

February 27, 1940

del contrato en virtud del paro.

ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager and propietor,
and
NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION,
INC., respondents.
Office of the Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Barcelona for the
Court of Industrial Relations.
Antonio D. Paguia for National Labor Unon.

The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand, prays for the
vacation of the judgement rendered by the majority of this Court and the
remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial, and
avers:
1. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26, 1938, there was
shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to
temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor Union Inc., is

entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs

The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion for

and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather.

reconsideration of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc.

2. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio

In view of the conclusion reached by us and to be herein after stead with

Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this

reference to the motion for a new trial of the respondent National Labor Union,

bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.

Inc., we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to pass upon the motion for
reconsideration of the Solicitor-General. We shall proceed to dispose of the

3. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army dated September

29, 1938, (re supposed delay of leather soles from the States) was but a
scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the

motion for new trial of the respondent labor union. Before doing this, however, we
deem it necessary, in the interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature, in
interest of orderly procedure in cases of this nature, to make several observations

breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.

regarding the nature of the powers of the Court of Industrial Relations and

4. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company

cases brought before it. We have re-examined the entire record of the proceedings

or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and

functions of which are illegal. (281 U.S., 548, petitioner's printed
memorandum, p. 25.)
5. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to collective
bargaining, majority rule and elective representation are highly
essential and indispensable. (Sections 2 and 5, Commonwealth Act No.
213.)
6. That the century provisions of the Civil Code which had been (the)
principal source of dissensions and continuous civil war in Spain
cannot and should not be made applicable in interpreting and applying
the salutary provisions of a modern labor legislation of American origin
where the industrial peace has always been the rule.
7. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice
for discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly
favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood.
8. That the exhibits hereto attached 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 Court
of Industrial Relations.
9. That 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.

emphasize certain guiding principles which should be observed in the trial of

had before the Court of Industrial Relations in this case, and we have found no
substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their
union affiliation or activity. The whole transcript taken contains what transpired
during the hearing and is more of a record of contradictory and conflicting
statements of opposing counsel, with sporadic conclusion drawn to suit their
own views. It is evident that these statements and expressions of views of counsel
have no evidentiary value.
The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are
specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is
more an administrative than a part of the integrated judicial system of the
nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike
a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is
invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant,
the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of
its organic law, is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises
judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between
employers and employees but its functions in the determination of disputes
between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive
and expensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider,
investigate, decide, and settle any question, matter controversy or dispute arising
between, and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers, and regulate the
relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1). It shall take cognizance or purposes of
prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or agricultural
dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising from differences as
regards wages, shares or compensation, hours of labor or conditions of tenancy
or employment, between landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, provided that
the number of employees, laborers or tenants of farm-laborers involved exceeds

thirty, and such industrial or agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by

(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the

the Secretary of Labor or by any or both of the parties to the controversy and

right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and

certified by the Secretary of labor as existing and proper to be by the Secretary of

submit evidence in support thereof. In the language of Chief Hughes,

Labor as existing and proper to be dealth with by the Court for the sake of public

in Morgan v. U.S., 304 U.S. 1, 58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed. 1129, "the

interest. (Section 4,ibid.) It shall, before hearing the dispute and in the course of

liberty and property of the citizen shall be protected by the rudimentary

such hearing, endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce them to settle the

requirements of fair play.

dispute by amicable agreement. (Paragraph 2, section 4, ibid.) When directed by

the President of the Philippines, it shall investigate and study all industries

(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case

established in a designated locality, with a view to determinating the necessity

and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts

and fairness of fixing and adopting for such industry or locality a minimum wage

but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (Chief Justice

or share of laborers or tenants, or a maximum "canon" or rental to be paid by the

"inquilinos" or tenants or less to landowners. (Section 5, ibid.) In fine, it may
appeal to voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes; may
employ mediation or conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective
system of official investigation and compulsory arbitration in order to determine
specific controversies between labor and capital industry and in agriculture.
There is in reality here a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which is a
departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers.
In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial Relations et al., G.R. No. 46673,
promulgated September 13, 1939, we had occasion to joint out that the Court of
Industrial Relations et al., G. R. No. 46673, promulgated September 13, 1939, we
had occasion to point out that the Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly
constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the Act requires it 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." (Section
20, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) It shall not be restricted to the specific relief
claimed or demands made by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute,
but may include in the award, order or decision any matter or determination
which may be deemed necessary or expedient for the purpose of settling the
dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes. (section
13, ibid.) And in the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this Court have
been especially regulated by the rules recently promulgated by the rules recently
promulgated by this Court to carry into the effect the avowed legislative purpose.
The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free
from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in
justifiable cases before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and
essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an
administrative character. There are primary rights which must be respected even
in proceedings of this character:

Hughes in Morgan v. U.S. 298 U.S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80 law. ed.
1288.) In the language of this court inEdwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil., 598,
"the right to adduce evidence, without the corresponding duty on the
part of the board to consider it, is vain. Such right is conspicuously
futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can
thrust it aside without notice or consideration."
(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 it is a nullity, a place when directly
attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This principle emanates from
the more fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited power
anywhere. Law is both a grant and a limitation upon power.
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or
conclusion (City of Manila vs. Agustin, G.R. No. 45844, promulgated
November 29, 1937, XXXVI O. G. 1335), but the evidence must be
"substantial." (Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co. v. national
labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. 648, 650, 81 Law.
ed. 965.) It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept
as adequate to support a conclusion." (Appalachian Electric Power v.
National Labor Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; National
Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15;
Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 2
Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) . . . The statute provides that "the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling.'
The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is to free
administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that
the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent inn
judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order.
(Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct.
563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce Commission v.

Louisville and Nashville R. Co., 227 U.S. 88, 93 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57

(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial

Law. ed. 431; United States v. Abilene and Southern Ry. Co. S. Ct. 220,

questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the

225, 74 Law. ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable flexibility in

proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for

administrative procedure does not go far as to justify orders without a

the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from

basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated

the authority conferred upon it.

hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence.

(Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S. Ct.
206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)"

In the right of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to observe

here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the
National Worker's Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren and does not

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the

satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate, in a national way, a

hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties

conclusion of law.

affected. (Interstate Commence Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U.S.

88, 33 S. Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the
administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosed to the parties, can the
latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against
them. It should not, however, detract from their duty actively to see that
the law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authorized legal
methods of securing evidence and informing itself of facts material and
relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the
purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case,
but their report and decision are only advisory. (Section 9,
Commonwealth Act No. 103.) The Court of Industrial Relations may
refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or any matter under its
consideration or advisement to a local board of inquiry, a provincial
fiscal. a justice of the peace or any public official in any part of the
Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, and may
delegate to such board or public official such powers and functions as
the said Court of Industrial Relations may deem necessary, but such
delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of any of its
powers. (Section 10, ibid.)

This result, however, does not now preclude the concession of a new trial prayed
for the by respondent National Labor Union, Inc., it is alleged that "the supposed
lack of material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme adopted to
systematically discharged all the members of the National Labor Union Inc., from
work" and this avernment is desired to be proved by the petitioner with the
"records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in
leather"; that "the National Workers Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is a
company or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and
functions of which are illegal." Petitioner further alleges under oath that the
exhibits attached to the petition to prove his substantial avernments" are so
inaccessible to the respondents that even within the exercise of due diligence
they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the
Court of Industrial Relations", and that the documents attached to the petition
"are of such far reaching importance and effect that their admission would
necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein."
We have considered the reply of Ang Tibay and its arguments against the petition.
By and large, after considerable discussions, we have come to the conclusion
that the interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given
opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion

(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must

and such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved. The

act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of

legislation which created the Court of Industrial Relations and under which it

the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in

acts is new. The failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely

arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it

attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the

is literally Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before

motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the entire

them. In the United States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of

record of this case shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with

statutory authority authorizing examiners or other subordinates to

instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant

render final decision, with the right to appeal to board or commission,

and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth

but in our case there is no such statutory authority.

hereinabove. So ordered.
ANG TIBAY VS CIR (DIGEST)

(3)

Due Process Admin Bodies CIR

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

TeodoroToribio owns and operates Ang Tibay a leather company which supplies the

its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when

Philippine Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the lay off of members of

directly attached.
(4)
Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the

National Labor Union Inc. NLU averred that Toribios act is not valid as it is not within the

evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means

CBA. That there are two labor unions in Ang Tibay; NLU and National Workers Brotherhood.

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a

That NWB is dominated by Toribio hence he favors it over NLU. That NLU wishes for a new

conclusion.
(5)
The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least

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.

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