Monday, February 6, 2012

Ang Tibay v CIR (1940) 69 Phil 635

J. Laurel

Toribio claimed to have laid off workers due to the shortage of leather soles in the Ang Tibay factory.
The Court of industrial relations forwarded a motion for recon with the supreme court.
In pursuit of a retrial in the Court of Industrial Relations, the national labor union, the respondent, averred:
1. The shortage of soles has no factual basis
2. The scheme was to prevent the forfeiture of his bond to cover the breach of obligation with the Army
3. The letter he sent to the army was part of this scheme
4. The company union was an employer dominated one.
5. laborers rights to CBA is indispensable.
6. Civil code shouldn’t be used to interpret a legislation of American industrial origins.
7. Toribio was guilty of unfair labor practice for favoring his union.
8. Exhibits are inaccessible to respondents.
9. The exhibits can reverse the judgment.

Issue: Is the Court of Industrial Relations the proper venue for the trial?

Held: Yes. Case remanded to the CIR

There was no substantial evidence that the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to their union affiliation or activity.
The nature of the CIR is that of an administrative court with judicial and quasi-judicial functions for the purpose of settling disputes and relations between employers and employees. It can appeal to voluntary arbitration for dispute. It can also examine the industries in a locality by order of the president.
There is a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which constitutes a departure from the separation of powers.
The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and is not bound by technical rules of legal procedure. It may also include any matter necessary for solving the dispute.
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.
Some examples that it must follow are:
1. right to a hearing
2. consideration of evidence by the court
3. duty to deliberate implies a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached
4. substance of evidence and the non-binding aspect of judicial decisions in an admin court so as to free them from technical rules
5. the decision must be rendered at the evidence presented at the hearing. The court may also delegate some powers to other judicial bodies.
6. The court must act on its own decision at reaching a controversy. It mustn’t merely accept the views of a subordinate.
7. The court must clearly state the issues and the rationale for the decision.
The record is barren and doesn’t satisfy a factual basis as to predicate a conclusion of law.
Evidence was still inaccessible.
The motion for a new trial should be granted and sent to the CIR.

No comments:

Post a Comment