Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations

No. 46496. February 27, 1940

FACTS:

The respondent National Labor Union, Inc prays for the vacation of the judgment rendered by the Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial. It avers that Teodoro’s claim that 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 and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather. It is a scheme adopted to systematically discharge all the members of the National Labor Union, Inc., from work.

ISSUE:

WON the motion for a new trial of the respondent National Labor Union, Inc. shall be granted.

HELD:

Yes , in interest of justice, the motion for new trial must be granted.

The record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual ,basis upon which to predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of law. 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 justiciable cases coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:

(1)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.

(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) 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.”

(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 various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.

Explore more tags!

Administrative Law (5) Agency (4) article 36 (4) Article 153 of the Family Code (3) Bill of Rights (3) capital (4) Case Digest (327) Civil Code (20) civil law (56) Civil Procedure (49) commercial law (80) Conflicts of Law (33) Constitutional Law (25) court of appeals (9) Credit Transactions (7) criminal law (3) criminal procedure (9) Eminent Domain (4) family code (19) family home (4) income (5) income taxation (4) Insurance (54) Intellectual Property (6) japan (5) labor law (37) Law School (318) marriage (12) National Labor Relations Commission (7) negotiable instrument (10) Oblicon (19) Obligation and Contracts (25) Persons and Family Relations (21) Political Law (33) Ponente (7) property (8) Psychological Incapacity (4) Reinsurance (3) Remedial Law (56) situs (3) situs of taxation (3) Social justice (7) Sources of Labor Rights and Obligations (4) Succession (7) Taxation Law (6)