Source: https://fr.scribd.com/presentation/295987006/Due-Process-in-Administrative-Proceedings
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:01:35+00:00

Document:
A powerpoint presentation on Due Process in Administrative proceedings; citing Ang Tibay v. CIR and other related cases.
due process clause of our Constitution.
Due Process Due process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Secretary of Labor. 196 SCRA 732) . (Bautista v.
Disciplinary proceedings against government officials and employees. . b.Administrative Due Process a. Adjudicatory Proceedings by administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions.
Due to alleged shortage of leather. 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. NLU averred that Toribio’s act is not valid as it is not within the CBA. That NWB is dominated by Toribio hence he favors it over NLU. 69 Phil 635 Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay. The Court of Industrial Relations. a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. Toribio caused the laying off of members of National Labor Union Inc.Ang Tibay v. NLU and National Worker’s Brotherhood. . that there are two labor unions in AngTibay.
The Court of Industrial Relations. The SC ruled that all administrative bodies cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process. 69 Phil 635 The SC ruled that there should be a new trial in favor of NLU. . (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. They are.Ang Tibay v. (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.
a place when directly attached. that of having something to support its decision. it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded.Ang Tibay v.” Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 69 Phil 635 (3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. The Court of Industrial Relations. (4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence must be “substantial. namely. .
. and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial Relations. 69 Phil 635 (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. therefore.
. and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The Court of Industrial Relations. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved. 69 Phil 635 (7) The Court of Industrial Relations should.Ang Tibay v. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. in all controversial questions.
69 Phil 635 The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No. 103). The Court of Industrial Relations. . It not only exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and expensive.Ang Tibay v. It is more an administrative than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation.
69 Phil 635 CIR has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines. and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers. to consider. decide. and in accordance with. 103 (section 1). and regulate the relations between them.Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial Relations. . matter controversy or dispute arising between. subject to. and settle any question. investigate. the provisions of Commonwealth Act No.
Liangco 339 SCRA 253) .I. Notice The purpose of notice is to afford the parties a chance to be heard. (Gozum v.
An individual is deemed to have been given express notice when he or she actually hears it or reads it.The information is given to the party directly a. b.deduced or inferred from the circumstances rather than from direct or explicit words. .1. Express . Actual . Implied .
Constructive .Constructive notice is information that a court deems that an individual should have known.2. .
Ex Parte Motion A motion that is made in a court with no notice being given to the party opposing. .
2. . does not always require a “trial-type proceeding. as a constitutional precept. in the leading case of Ledesma v Court of Appeals. does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding.” Thus. the Supreme Court ruled that “(d)ue process. Opportunity to Be Heard “Opportunity to be heard” in relation to due process in administrative proceedings.
Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings. . the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.
” (Ledesma v. an opportunity to explain one’s side. CA) . or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. or as applied to administrative proceedings.The essence of due process is simply to be heard.
The petitioner who had the same opportunity to rebut the belatedly-furnished affidavits of the private respondent's witnesses was not denied and cannot now claim denial of due process because she did not take advantage of the opportunity opened to her at the Ombudsman level. OMB) . (Ruivivar v.
Tribunal The tribunal must consider the evidence presented by a party.3. .
. and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate.Tribunal’s Independent Consideration The tribunal must rely on its own independent consideration of evidence.
56 S. Ct. 298 U. (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.While the tribunal has no duty to decide the case correctly.S. 468. 1288.) . ed.S. 906. CIR. its decision must be supported by evidence. 80 law. In Ang Tibay v. U. (Chief Justice Hughes in Morgan v.
McCoy. 598." . Such right is conspicuously futile if the person or persons to whom the evidence is presented can thrust it aside without notice or consideration.. "the right to adduce evidence.In the language of this court inEdwards vs. 22 Phil. is vain. without the corresponding duty on the part of the board to consider it.
. When Case is Decided – The disciplining authority shall decide the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Formal Investigation Report.Section 36.
” . Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 states when the decision should be rendered: “The decision shall be rendered by the disciplining authority within thirty day from the determination of the investigation or submission of the report of the investigator which report shall be submitted within fifteen days from the conclusion of the investigation.When decision should be made Section 48 (4).
48].S. decision or conclusion is void (Wichita Railroad and Light Co. US) .Decision requires findings of facts A valid decision must contain a finding of facts after hearing and investigation upon which the order is based. but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented’. Public Utility Commission [260 U. The facts of the case must therefore be considered fully and stated clearly in the decision because ‘not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he assert. and for lack of such a finding of facts. the order. v.(Morgan v.
Chapter 3.How parties are notified of decision Section 14. The parties shall be notified of the decision personally or by registered mail addressed to their counsel of record. . or to them”. if any. Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides: “Every decision rendered by the agency in a contested case shall be in writing and shall state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. The agency shall decide each case within thirty days following its submission.
whichever is later. et al. A respondent cannot frustrate the proper service of a process by simply refusing to accept it. either of whom shall constitute a valid service.. and thereupon the period to perfect a motion for reconsideration or an appeal shall be reckoned from that time. However.R. The computation of the period within which to perfect a motion for reconsideration or an appeal is reckoned from the date of receipt of the decision by the respondent or by his legal counsel. No. Therefore. refusal to personally receive a copy of the decision upon being personally handed with one is deemed to have been validly served at that instance. (De Luna v. Pascual.Service of the decision A copy of a decision may be served on the respondent himself or the respondent’s legal counsel or both. 144218) . G. the administrative agency has the option as to whom a copy of the decision should be served.
4. Substantial Evidence Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. .
substantial evidence is required to support any finding. even if the evidence might not be overwhelming. (Tolentino v. Loyola) . Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of.In administrative cases.
Laurel adopted the concept from an American case that there’s no statutory rule on evidence in administrative cases. . decreeing substantial evidence as the quantum of proof for administrative cases. What has addressed this vacuum through the years is a judicial fiat.Ang Tibay v. CIR Justice Jose P. made in 1940.
(Office of the Court Administrator v. the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence. Bucoy . supra) .In administrative proceedings.
a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides: “Section 5. Substantial evidence.Rules of evidence under the Rules of Court and Administrative Code. or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)” . — In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies. Section 5.
states that “mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. in 1938. Supreme Court Chief Justice Hughes.” . CIR.What is not Substantial Evidence In Ang Tibay v.S. The words of U.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.