Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 208 views

    ANG TIBAY Petitioners, vs. The Court of Industrial Relations Respondents

    Uploaded by

    me1204
    The Supreme Court granted the motion for a new trial in the case between Ang Tibay petitioners and the Court of Industrial Relations respondents. The Court held that the CIR, as a special administrative court, must consider all evidence presented by the parties and render a decision independently based on the law and facts. It should disclose the issues and reasons for its decision. The case was remanded to the CIR to reopen proceedings and properly resolve the issues regarding alleged unfair labor practices.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ANG TIBAY Petitioners, vs. The Court of Industrial Relations Respondents

    Uploaded by

    me1204
    208 views7 pages
    The Supreme Court granted the motion for a new trial in the case between Ang Tibay petitioners and the Court of Industrial Relations respondents. The Court held that the CIR, as a special administrative court, must consider all evidence presented by the parties and render a decision independently based on the law and facts. It should disclose the issues and reasons for its decision. The case was remanded to the CIR to reopen proceedings and properly resolve the issues regarding alleged unfair labor practices.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Original Title

    Ang tibay V CIR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court granted the motion for a new trial in the case between Ang Tibay petitioners and the Court of Industrial Relations respondents. The Court held that the CIR, as a special administrative court, must consider all evidence presented by the parties and render a decision independently based on the law and facts. It should disclose the issues and reasons for its decision. The case was remanded to the CIR to reopen proceedings and properly resolve the issues regarding alleged unfair labor practices.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    208 views7 pages

    ANG TIBAY Petitioners, vs. The Court of Industrial Relations Respondents

    Uploaded by

    me1204
    The Supreme Court granted the motion for a new trial in the case between Ang Tibay petitioners and the Court of Industrial Relations respondents. The Court held that the CIR, as a special administrative court, must consider all evidence presented by the parties and render a decision independently based on the law and facts. It should disclose the issues and reasons for its decision. The case was remanded to the CIR to reopen proceedings and properly resolve the issues regarding alleged unfair labor practices.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    ANG TIBAY petitioners,

    vs.
    THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS respondents.
    G.R. No. L-46496             February 27, 1940
    Facts:

    • Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which
    supplies the Philippine Army.

    • Due to an alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the lay off of a


    number of his employees. However, the National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU)
    questioned the validity of said lay off as it averred that the said employees
    laid off were members of NLU while no members of the rival labor union
    (National Worker’s Brotherhood) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a
    company dominated union and Toribio was merely busting NLU.

    • The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) where Toribio and
    NWB won.
    • Eventually, NLU went to the Supreme Court 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, on the ground that the supposed lack of leather materials claimed
    by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to systematically prevent the
    forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his contract with the
    Philippine Army.

    • 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.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the issues should be properly directed, resolved or determined by the
    Court of Industrial Relation.

    Held:
    • Yes, The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its
    creation. It is more of an administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of
    the nation. It is not intended to be a more receptive organ of the Government.
    • The CIR 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 CIR 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 decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from
    the authority conferred upon it.
    • Accordingly, the motion for new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and
    the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the CIR with instruction that it
    reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant and otherwise proceed
    in accordance w/ the requirements set forth herein above.
    Cardinal primary rights of due process in administrative proceedings

    • Right to a hearing, including the right to present one’s own case and
    submit evidence in support thereof 
    • Tribunal must consider the evidence presented 
    • Decision must have something to support itself 
    • Evidence must be substantial
    • It must be relevant as a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate
    to support a conclusion
    • 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
    • Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does NOT constitute
    substantial evidence 
    Cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative
    proceedings

    • Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or


    at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
    • On boards of inquiry
    • They may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and
    determining the facts in any given case
    • Their report and decision are only advisory
    • 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
    Cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative
    proceedings

    • 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
    • CIR should render its decision in such a manner that the parties can
    know the issues involved and the reasons for the decisions rendered.

    You might also like