Ang Tibay vs.

Court of Industrial Relations

G.R. No. L-46496
February 27, 1940
Administrative Due Process

FACTS:
Teodoro Toribio is alleged to have laid off workers of the Ang Tibay factory, a company
which he owns. Incidentally all 89 of these workers he had laid off are all from the National
Labor Union (NLU) Inc. Toribio insists that he had to let them go because his company is
experiencing shortage of leather. This claim though is challenged to be false and unsupported
by the records of Customs and Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather.

The National Labor Union worker avers that Toribio’s act is not valid. The Court of
Industrial Relations decided the case and elevated to the Supreme Court. NLU raises a
motion for a new trial.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations should observe due process

HELD:
Yes. The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of
procedure, and Commonwealth Act No. 103 requires it to act according to justice and equity
and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal evidence but may
inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.

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.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding 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.

(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 various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.