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 evidenc e 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.

People v Panis 142 SCRA 664 1986

Facts:Four informations were filed on January 9, 1981, in the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City alleging that SerapioAbug, private respondent herein, "without first securing a license from the Ministry of Labor as a holder of authority to operate a feecharging employment agency, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally operate a private fee-charging employment agency by charging fees and expenses (from) and promising employment in Saudi Arabia" to four separate individuals named therein, in violation of Article 16 in relation to Article 39 of the Labor Code. Abug filed a motion to quash on the ground that the informations did not charge an offense because he was accused of illegally recruiting only one person in each of the four informations. Under the proviso in Article 13(b), he claimed, there would be illegal recruitment only "whenever two or more persons are in any manner promised or offered any employment for a fee." The posture of the petitioner is that the private respondent is being prosecuted under Article 39 in relation to Article 16 of the Labor Code; hence, Article 13(b) is not applicable. However, as the first two cited articles penalize acts of recruitment and placement without proper authority, which is the charge embodied in the informations, application of the definition of recruitment and placement in Article 13(b) is unavoidable. Issue:Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code. Held:Article 13(b) of P. D. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code, states that, "(b) 'Recruitment and placement' refers to any act of canvassing, 'enlisting, contracting, transporting, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement." As we see it, the proviso was intended neither to impose a condition on the basic rule nor to provide an exception thereto but merely to create a presumption. The presumption is that the individual or entity is engaged in recruitment and placement whenever he or it is dealing with two or more persons to whom, in consideration of a fee, an offer or promise of employment is made in the course of the "canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring (of) workers." At any rate, the interpretation here adopted should give more force to the campaign against illegal recruitment and placement, which has victimized many Filipino workers seeking a better life in a foreign land, and investing hard-earned savings or even borrowed funds in pursuit of

their dream, only to be awakened to the reality of a cynical deception at the hands of their own countrymen.

VIR-JEN Shipping and Marine Services, Inc., vs. NLRC G.R. No. L-58011 & L-58012 November 18, 1983 EN BANC, GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: Facts: Certain seamen entered into a contract of employment for a 12-month period. Some three months after the commencement of their employment, the seamen demanded a 50 % increase of their salaries and benefits. The seamen demanded this increase while their vessel was en route to a port in Australia controlled by thye International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), a militant international labor organization with affiliates in different ports of the world, which reputedly can tie a vessel in a port by preventing its loading and unloading unless it paid its seamen their prescribed ITF rates. In reply, the agent of the owner of the vessel agreed to pay a 25% increase, but when the vessel arrived in Japan shortly afterwards, the seamen were repatriated to Manila and their contract terminated. There is no showing that the Seamen were given the opportunity to at least comment for the cancellation of their contracts, although they had served only three (3) out of the twelve (12) months' duration of their contracts. The private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of earned wages with the National Seamen Board (NSB). The Vir-jen Shipping and Marine Services Inc. in turn filed a complaint for breach of contract and recovery of excess salaries and overtime pay against the private respondents. On July 2, 1980, the NSB rendered a decision declaring that the seamen breached their employment contracts when they demanded and received from Vir-jen Shipping wages over and above their contracted rates. The dismissal of the seamen was declared legal and the seamen were ordered suspended. The seamen appealed the decision to the NLRC which reversed the decision of the on the ground that the termination of the contract by the petitioner was without valid cause. Hence, the petition. Issue: Whether or not the findings of the NSB is more credible than the NLRC that the seamen did not violate their contract. Held: The decision sought to be reconsidered appears to be a deviation from the Court's decision, speaking through the First Division, in Wallem Shipping, Inc. v. Hon. Minister of Labor (102 SCRA 835). Faced with two seemingly conflicting resolutions of basically the same issue by its two Divisions, the Court. therefore, resolved to transfer the case to the Court en banc. We sustain the decision of the respondent National labor Relations Commission. The contention that manning industries in the Philippines would not survive if the instant case is not decided in favor of the petitioner is not supported by evidence. The Wallem case was decided on February 20, 1981. There have been no severe repercussions, no drying up of employment opportunities for seamen, and none of the dire consequences repeatedly emphasized by the petitioner. Why should Vir-jen be all exception? Filipino seamen are admittedly as competent and reliable as seamen from any other country in the world. Otherwise, there would not be so many of them in the vessels sailing in every ocean and sea on this globe. It is competence and reliability, not cheap labor that makes our seamen so greatly in demand. Filipino seamen have never demanded the same high salaries as seamen from the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and other developed nations. But certainly they are entitled to government protection when they ask for fair and decent treatment by their employer.-, and when they exercise the right to petition for improved terms of employment, especially when they feel that these are sub-

standard or are capable of improvement according to internationally accepted rules. In the domestic scene, there are marginal employers who prepare two sets of payrolls for their employees one in keeping with minimum wages and the other recording the substandard wages that the employees really receive, The reliable employers, however, not only meet the minimums required by fair labor standards legislation but even go way above the minimums while earning reasonable profits and prospering. The same is true of international employment. There is no reason why this Court and the Ministry of Labor and. Employment or its agencies and commissions should come out with pronouncements based on the standards and practices of unscrupulous or inefficient shipowners, who claim they cannot survive without resorting to tricky and deceptive schemes, instead of Government maintaining labor law and jurisprudence according to the practices of honorable, competent, and law-abiding employers, domestic or foreign. Prescinding from the above, we now hold that neither the National Seamen Board nor the National Labor Relations Commission should, as a matter of official policy, legitimize and enforce cubious arrangements where shipowners and seamen enter into fictitious contracts similar to the addendum agreements or side contracts in this case whose purpose is to deceive. The Republic of the Philippines and its ministries and agencies should present a more honorable and proper posture in official acts to the whole world, notwithstanding our desire to have as many job openings both here and abroad for our workers. At the very least, such as sensitive matter involving no less than our dignity as a people and the welfare of our workingmen must proceed from the Batasang Pambansa in the form of policy legislation, not from administrative rule making or adjudication

Lara vs Del Rosario

on November 5, 2010

94 Phil 778 / Preliminary Title Publication Civil Code

Lara et al were former taxi drivers of the defendant. When the latter sold some of his vehicles, the plaintiffs who were no longer needed were dismissed. Because their employer did not give them their one months salary in lieu of the notice required in Article 302 of the Code of Commerce, this action was instituted. ISSUE: Whether or not the New Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1949. HELD: In this case, the Supreme Court in an obiter dictum held that the new Civil Code of the Philippines took effect on August 30, 1950. This date is exactly one year after the Official Gazette publishing the Code was released for circulation, the said release having been made on August 30, 1949. The plaintiffs then are not entitled to any compensation, the New Civil Code having repealed the Code of Commerce.