1
report and decision are only
(1) Ang Tibay vs CIR
 A concession of a new trial prayed for by the
respondent National Labor Union.
 The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition
both to the motion for
 reconsideration of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations and to the motion for new trial of the
respondent National Labor Union, Inc.
 We deem it necessary, in the interest of orderly
procedure in cases of this nature, to make several
observations regarding the nature of the powers of
the Court of Industrial Relations and emphasize
certain guiding principles hich should be observed in
the trial of cases brought before it.
(2) As decided in the case of Goseco vs. Court of
Industrial Relations
(3) Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly
constrained by technical rules of procedure.
(4) Act according to justice and equity and substantial
merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or
legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical
rules of legal evidence
(5) 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,
it can entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental
and essential requirements of due Process in trials
and investigations of an administrative character
(6) Cardinal primary rights which must be respected:
(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) tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
(3) Having something to support its decision. A
decision with absolutely nothing to support
it is a nullity.
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to
support a 􀁅nding 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.
 Boards of inquiry may be
appointed for the purpose of
investigating and determining the
facts in any given case, but their
advisory.
(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
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.
 We have come to the conclusion that the interest of
justice would be better served if the movant is given
opportunity to present at the hearing the documents
referred to in his motion and such other evidence as
may be relevant to the main issue involved.
(2) Acuzar vs Jorolan
 Jorolan filed an Administrative Case
 against petitioner before the PLEB (People's Law
Enforcement Board) charging the latter of Grave
Misconduct for allegedly having an illicit relationship
with respondent's minor daughter.
 respondent also instituted a criminal case against
before the MTC for violation of the Child Abuse Act.
 petitioner 􀁅led his Counter-Af􀁅davit before the PLEB
 vehemently denying all the accusations leveled
against him with af􀁅davit of complainant's
daughter, Rigma A. Jorolan
 Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the
proceedings before the PLEB pending resolution of
the criminal case 􀁅led before the regular court. The
PLEB denied his motion for lack of merit and a
hearing of the case was conducted.
 PLEB found Acuzar guilty and punished with
dismissal.
 Petitioner filed for a Petition for Certiorari with
Prayer for PMI and TRO
Contentions:
o alleged that the subject decision was issued
without giving him an opportunity to be
heard.
o Board acted without jurisdiction in
proceeding - the petitioner having been first
convicted in the criminal case before the
regular court
 The trial court rendered a Decision annulling the
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
nutshell, the petitioner was not given his day in
Court.
 CA reversed TC: that petitioner should have
appealed the decision of the PLEB to the regional
appellate board of the PNP before resorting to
certiorari before the court. Certiorari was not the
proper remedy.
 ISSUE: is whether or not the CA erred in ruling that
petitioner's resort to certiorari was not warranted as
the remedy of appeal from the decision of the PLEB
was available to him.
 CONTENTION: the instant case falls under the
exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of
administrative remedies, the decision being patently
illegal.
 SC affirms the appellate court's ruling.
 The petitioner was charged with grave misconduct
for engaging in an illicit affair with respondent's
minor daughter, he being a married man, and not for
violation of law.
 Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or
unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose.
 It does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intention but implies wrongful intention.
 "violation of law" presupposes final conviction in
court of any crime penalized under RPC/special laws
 Criminal and administrative cases are separate and
distinct from each other. (proof beyond reasonable
doubt vs substantial evidence)
 Verily, administrative cases may proceed
independently of criminal proceedings.
 The PLEB, being the administrative disciplinary body
tasked to hear complaints against erring members of
the PNP, has jurisdiction over the case (RA No. 6975)
 Under Sec 43 of RA 6975, remedy of appeal from
the decision of the PLEB to the Regional Appellate
Board was available to petitioner. Since appeal was
available, filing a petition for certiorari was inapt.
 If a remedy is available within the administrative
machinery of the administrative agency, then this
alternative should 􀁅rst be utilized before resort can
be made to the courts. This is to enable such body to
review and correct any mistakes without the
intervention of the court.
 Special civil action for certiorari to prosper, the
following requisites must concur: (1) it must be
directed against a tribunal, board or of􀁅cer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) the
tribunal, board or of􀁅cer must have acted without or
in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
of law.
 In administrative proceedings, procedural due
process has been recognized to include the
following:
(1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the
institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondent's legal rights;
(2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with
the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights;
(3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and
so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty
as well as impartiality; and
(4) a 􀁅nding by said tribunal which is supported by
substantial evidence submitted for consideration
during the hearing or contained in the records or
made known to the parties affected.
 Petitioner was noti􀁅ed of the complaint against him
and in fact, he had submitted his counter-af􀁅davit
and the af􀁅davits of his witnesses. He attended the
hearings together with his counsel and even asked
for several postponements. Petitioner therefore
cannot claim that he had been denied of due
process.
 Due process in an administrative context does not
require trial-type proceedings similar to those in
courts of justice.
 Where opportunity to be heard either through oral
arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is
no denial of due process.
 It is not legally objectionable for being violative of
due process for an administrative agency to resolve
a case based solely on position papers, af􀁅davits or
documentary evidence submitted by the parties as
af􀁅davits of witnesses may take the place of direct
testimony.
(3) Paterok vs Bureau of Customs
 Petitioner shipped from Germany used automobiles,
but the Mercedez Benz was seized for violation of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 73 and the Tariff and Customs
Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, and
Central Bank Circular (CBC) 1069
 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."