Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

1

report and decision are only


advisory.
(1) Ang Tibay vs CIR
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of
its judges, therefore, must act on its or his
 A concession of a new trial prayed for by the own independent consideration of the law
respondent National Labor Union. and facts of the controversy, and not simply
 The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition accept the views of a subordinate in arriving
both to the motion for at a decision.
 reconsideration of the respondent Court of Industrial (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should
Relations and to the motion for new trial of the render its decision in such a manner that
respondent National Labor Union, Inc. the parties to the proceeding can know the
 We deem it necessary, in the interest of orderly various issues involved, and the reasons for
procedure in cases of this nature, to make several the decisions rendered.
observations regarding the nature of the powers of  We have come to the conclusion that the interest of
the Court of Industrial Relations and emphasize justice would be better served if the movant is given
certain guiding principles hich should be observed in opportunity to present at the hearing the documents
the trial of cases brought before it. referred to in his motion and such other evidence as
(2) As decided in the case of Goseco vs. Court of may be relevant to the main issue involved.
Industrial Relations
(3) Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly (2) Acuzar vs Jorolan
constrained by technical rules of procedure.
(4) Act according to justice and equity and substantial  Jorolan filed an Administrative Case
merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or  against petitioner before the PLEB (People's Law
legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical Enforcement Board) charging the latter of Grave
rules of legal evidence Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship
(5) However, that the Court of Industrial Relations may with respondent's minor daughter.
be said to be free from the rigidity of certain
 respondent also instituted a criminal case against
procedural requirements does not mean that it can,
before the MTC for violation of the Child Abuse Act.
it can entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental
 petitioner 􀁅led his Counter-Af􀁅davit before the PLEB
and essential requirements of due Process in trials
 vehemently denying all the accusations leveled
and investigations of an administrative character
against him with af􀁅davit of complainant's
(6) Cardinal primary rights which must be respected:
daughter, Rigma A. Jorolan
(1) the right to a hearing which includes the
 Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the
right of the party interested or affected to
proceedings before the PLEB pending resolution of
present his own case and submit evidence
the criminal case 􀁅led before the regular court. The
in support thereof
PLEB denied his motion for lack of merit and a
(2) tribunal must consider the evidence
hearing of the case was conducted.
presented.
 PLEB found Acuzar guilty and punished with
(3) Having something to support its decision. A
dismissal.
decision with absolutely nothing to support
 Petitioner filed for a Petition for Certiorari with
it is a nullity.
Prayer for PMI and TRO
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to
Contentions:
support a 􀁅nding or conclusion, but the
o alleged that the subject decision was issued
evidence must be "substantial."
without giving him an opportunity to be
(5) The decision must be rendered on the
heard.
evidence presented at the hearing, or at
o Board acted without jurisdiction in
least contained in the record and disclosed
proceeding - the petitioner having been first
to the parties affected.
convicted in the criminal case before the
 Boards of inquiry may be
regular court
appointed for the purpose of
investigating and determining the  The trial court rendered a Decision annulling the
facts in any given case, but their Decision of the PLEB: But nothing in the record
would show that the Board scheduled a hearing for
2

the reception of the evidence of the petitioner. In a discretion amounting to lack or excess of
nutshell, the petitioner was not given his day in jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain,
Court. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
 CA reversed TC: that petitioner should have of law.
appealed the decision of the PLEB to the regional  In administrative proceedings, procedural due
appellate board of the PNP before resorting to process has been recognized to include the
certiorari before the court. Certiorari was not the following:
proper remedy.
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the
 ISSUE: is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that
institution of proceedings which may affect a
petitioner's resort to certiorari was not warranted as
respondent's legal rights;
the remedy of appeal from the decision of the PLEB
was available to him. (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with
 CONTENTION: the instant case falls under the the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights;
administrative remedies, the decision being patently (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and
illegal. so constituted as to afford a person charged
 SC affirms the appellate court's ruling. administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty
 The petitioner was charged with grave misconduct as well as impartiality; and
for engaging in an illicit affair with respondent's
minor daughter, he being a married man, and not for (4) a 􀁅nding by said tribunal which is supported by
violation of law. substantial evidence submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained in the records or
 Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or
made known to the parties affected.
unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose.  Petitioner was noti􀁅ed of the complaint against him
 It does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal and in fact, he had submitted his counter-af􀁅davit
intention but implies wrongful intention. and the af􀁅davits of his witnesses. He attended the
 "violation of law" presupposes final conviction in hearings together with his counsel and even asked
court of any crime penalized under RPC/special laws for several postponements. Petitioner therefore
 Criminal and administrative cases are separate and cannot claim that he had been denied of due
distinct from each other. (proof beyond reasonable process.
doubt vs substantial evidence)  Due process in an administrative context does not
 Verily, administrative cases may proceed require trial-type proceedings similar to those in
independently of criminal proceedings. courts of justice.
 The PLEB, being the administrative disciplinary body  Where opportunity to be heard either through oral
tasked to hear complaints against erring members of arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is
the PNP, has jurisdiction over the case (RA No. 6975) no denial of due process.
 Under Sec 43 of RA 6975, remedy of appeal from  It is not legally objectionable for being violative of
the decision of the PLEB to the Regional Appellate due process for an administrative agency to resolve
Board was available to petitioner. Since appeal was a case based solely on position papers, af􀁅davits or
available, filing a petition for certiorari was inapt. documentary evidence submitted by the parties as
 If a remedy is available within the administrative af􀁅davits of witnesses may take the place of direct
machinery of the administrative agency, then this testimony.
alternative should 􀁅rst be utilized before resort can
be made to the courts. This is to enable such body to (3) Paterok vs Bureau of Customs
review and correct any mistakes without the
intervention of the court.  Petitioner shipped from Germany used automobiles,
 Special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the but the Mercedez Benz was seized for violation of
following requisites must concur: (1) it must be Batas Pambansa Blg. 73 and the Tariff and Customs
directed against a tribunal, board or of􀁅cer Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, and
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the Central Bank Circular (CBC) 1069
tribunal, board or of􀁅cer must have acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
3

 Petitioner received a notice of hearing of the seizure  He must make sure that the engine is changed
proceedings. before it is allowed to ply Philippine soil: Energy
 While, the petitioner received a letter conservation.
 informing her that a decision ordering the forfeiture
of her Mercedes Benz had been made by the District
Collector of Customs.
o The petitioner had not been informed that
a separate seizure case was filed on the
same Mercedes Benz in question before the
said District Collector, an office likewise
under the Bureau of Customs
o The petitioner later found out that a Notice
of Hearing set on was posted on the bulletin
board of the Bureau of Customs at Port
Area, Manila
 The petitioner, filed a motion for new trial before
the Collector of Customs, but was denied, invoking
the failure of the former to appear in the said
hearing despite the posting of the notice on the
bulletin board.
 Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Dept of
Finance, and was referred to BOC. The petitioner
likewise addressed a letter to the Assistant Executive
Secretary for Legal Affairs, Office of the President,
Malacañang, requesting the latter's assistance for a
speedy resolution of the said petition.
 BOC affirmed order of the Collector of Customs.
 Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari:
o Is Bulletin board a sufficient notice?
o
 SC: A notice of hearing posted on the bulletin board
of the public respondent in a forfeiture proceeding
 where the owner of the alleged prohibited article is
known does not constitute sufficient compliance
with proper service of notice and procedural due
process.
 Said procedure is premised on the ground that the
party or owner of the property in question is
unknown.
 Inasmuch as it would be contrary to law, i.e., B.P.
Blg. 73, to allow the petitioner to redeem the
Mercedes Benz in question, there is therefore no
alternative, as correctly claimed by the public
respondents, but to forfeit the same.
 There is nothing in the Code that authorizes the
Collector to release the contraband in favor of an
importer. The Code, on the other hand, is clear that
the thing may be disposed of by sale alone "under
such restrictions as will insure its use for legitimate
purposes."

Centres d'intérêt liés