Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
S Case
Benjamin Gozon. ZCM, Inc., were asserting their claim against the RULING OF CA:
mining claims of Martinez and
CA after realizing that Gozon cannot affirm his own decision
Pabilona. Director Gozon decided in favor of Martinez and Pabilona remanded the case to the Minister of
and dismissed the claims of ZCM,
Natural Resources.
Inc., ruling that ZCM, Inc. did not discover any mineral nor located
any mining claims in accordance with ISSUE/S:
law. ZCM appealed the decision before the Secretary of Environment Whether or not Gozon can review and validly affirm his earlier
and Natural Resources. During the decision w/o disturbing due process?
ZCM then appealed before the CFI of Zambales. The CFI affirmed RATIO:
the decision of Gozon.
In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might
RULING OF CFI: not turn out to be a farce the
reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose
decision is under review; otherwise,
would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case.
SINGSON V NLRC
Under Rule VII, Section 2 (b) of the New Rules of Procedure of the
NLRC, each Division shall consist of one member from the public
Miguel Singson was an employee of the Philippine Air Lines (PAL). In
sector who shall act as the Presiding Commissioner and one member
1991, a Japanese national alleged that Singson extorted money from
each from the workers and employers sectors, respectively. The
her ($200.00) by accusing her of having excess baggage; and that to
composition of the Division guarantees equal representation and
settle the issue, she needs to pay said amount to him. Singson was
impartiality among its members. Thus, litigants are entitled to a review
later investigated and the investigating committee found him guilty.
of three (3) commissioners who are impartial right from the start of the
PAL then dismissed Singson from employment. Singson then filed a
process of review.
case before NLRC against PAL for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter Raul
Commissioner Aquino can hardly be considered impartial since he
Aquino ruled in favor of Singson as he found PALs side insufficient to
was the arbiter who decided the case under review. He should have
dismiss Singson. PAL appealed to the National Labor Relations
inhibited himself from any participation in this case. The infirmity of the
Commission (NLRC) and his case was raffled to the 2 nd Division
resolution was not cured by the fact that the motion for reconsideration
thereof.
of Singson was denied by two commissioners and without the
The 2nd Division, however, was composed of Commissioners
participation of Aquino. The right of petitioner to an impartial review of
Victoriano Calaycay, Rogelio Rayala, and former Labor Arbiter Raul
his appeal starts from the time he filed his appeal. He is not only
Aquino same arbiter which decided Singsons case. The
entitled to an impartial tribunal in the resolution of his motion for
commissioners deliberated on the case and thereafter reversed the
reconsideration. Moreover, his right is to an impartial review of three
decision of Aquino.
commissioners. The denial of Singsons right to an impartial review of
Singson moved for reconsideration. This time, only Commissioners
his appeal is not an innocuous error. It negated his right to due
Calaycay and Rayala deliberated on the motion. The motion was
process.
denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not Singson was denied of due process.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Singson was denied due
process. The SC held that Singson was denied due process when
Aquino participated, as presiding commissioner of the 2nd Division of
the NLRC, in reviewing PALs appeal. He was reviewing his own
decision as a former labor arbiter.