ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager and propietor, and NATIONAL WORKERS

BROTHERHOOD, petitioners,
vs.

THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC.,respondents

Facts:
The Solicitor General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations has filed a motion for
reconsideration wherein the court has considered the legal conclusions stated in Spanish language.

The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand, prays for the vacation of the judgment of
the majority of this court and remanded the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for new trial averring
among other issues that Toribio Teodoro claimed that there was shortage of Ang Tibay leather shoes
thus it made him necessary to lay off the members of the National Labor Union, Inc.

That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme to
systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his contract with the Philippine
Army.

That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against the
National Labor Union, Inc. and unjustly favoring the National Workers’ Brotherhood.

Facts:

Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army.
Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the lay off of a number of his employees. However, the
National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU) questioned the validity of said lay off as it averred that the said
employees laid off were members of NLU while no members of the rival labor union National Workers
Brotherhood (NWB) were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a company dominated union and Toribio was
merely busting NLU.

The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU
went to the Supreme Court invoking its right for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.
The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The Solicitor General, arguing for the CIR, filed a motion for
reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not the issues should be properly directed, resolved or determined by the Court of Industrial
Relation.

Held:
Yes, The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation. It is more
an administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a more
receptive organ of the Government.

The CIR 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.

The CIR 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 decision rendered. The
performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

Accordingly, the motion for new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of
this case shall be remanded to the CIR with instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence
as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance w/ the requirements set forth herein above.
Alliance for the Family Foundation,
Philippines, Inc. (ALFI) et.al. vs. Hon. Garin
(G.R. Nos. 217872 and 221866, 26
April 2017)
Leave a reply

I will summarize the facts as follows:

Petitioners opposed the unilateral act of the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) on
re-certifying the contraceptive drugs named Implanon and Implanon NXT; the basis
of their opposition hinges on the fact that these drugs are abortifacients. Thus,
according to them, they should have been given notice of the certification
proceedings, and a chance to present evidence that indeed such drugs are
abortifacients.

Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that petitioners are not entitled to notice and
hearing because the said proceedings are done in the exercise of its regulatory power,
not quasi-judicial power; also, they alleged that the Honorable Supreme Court is
incompetent to rule on the instant controversy due to the same reason.

Issues:

(a) Whether or not said controversy is outside the scope of Judicial Review;

(b) Whether or not petitioners were deprived of substantial and procedural due process
of law;

Held/Doctrines:

It is quite fascinating that the Supreme Court again reminded us the two fundamental
powers of an administrative body, in the words of the Honorable Court:

“The powers of an administrative body are classified into two fundamental

powers: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. Quasi-legislative power, otherwise
known as the power of subordinate legislation, has been defined as the authority
delegated by the lawmaking body to the administrative body to adopt rules and
regulations intended to carry out the provisions of law and implement legislative
policy. A legislative rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation designed to
implement a primary legislation by providing the details thereof. The exercise by the
administrative body of its quasi-legislative power through the promulgation of
regulations of general application does not, as a rule, require notice and hearing. The
only exception being where the Legislature itself requires it and mandates that the
regulation shall be based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate
investigation.

Quasi-judicial power, on the other hand, is known as the power of the administrative
agency to determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, in
accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself. As it involves the exercise
of discretion in determining the rights and liabilities of the parties, the proper exercise
of quasi-judicial power requires the concurrence of two elements: one, jurisdiction
which must be acquired by the administrative body and two, the observance of the
requirements of due process, that is, the right to notice and hearing.”

To answer (a) above, the Supreme Court has this to say, viz:

“On the argument that the certification proceedings were conducted by the FDA in
the exercise of its “regulatory powers” and, therefore, beyond judicial review, the
Court holds that it has the power to review all acts and decisions where there is a
commission of grave abuse of discretion. No less than the Constitution decrees that
the Court must exercise its duty to ensure that no grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction is committed by any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. Such is committed when there is a violation of the constitutional
mandate that “no person is deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process
of law.” The Court’s power cannot be curtailed by the FDA’s invocation of its
regulatory power.”

With regard to (b), the Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were deprived of their
Right to Due Process. Perusal of the law and rules of procedure of the instant agency
reveals the need of an issuance of notice to all concerned MAHs and a posting of
the contraceptive products for public comments.These, respondents failed to do.

This was thoroughly explained by the Court, to wit:

“Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and procedural. In order that a
particular act may not be impugned as violative of the due process clause, there must
be compliance with both the substantive and procedural requirements thereof.
Substantive due process refers to the intrinsic validity of a law that interferes with the
rights of a person to his property. Procedural due process, on the other hand, means
compliance with the procedures or steps, even periods, prescribed by the statute, in
conformity with the standard of fair play and without arbitrariness on the part of those
who are called upon to administer it. xxx
xxx To conclude that product registration, recertification, procurement, and
distribution of the questioned contraceptive drugs and devices by the FDA in the
exercise of its regulatory power need not comply with the requirements of due process
would render the issuance of notices to concerned MAHs and the posting of a list of
contraceptives for public comment a meaningless exercise. Concerned MAHs and the
public in general will be deprived of any significant participation if what they will
submit will not be considered.

Section 7.04, Rule 7 of the IRR of the RH Law (RH-IRR), relied upon by the
respondents in support of their claims, expressly allows the consideration of
conflicting evidence, such as that supplied by the petitioners in support of their
opposition to the approval of certain contraceptive drugs and devices. In fact, the said
provision mandated that the FDA utilize the “best evidence available” to ensure that
no abortifacient is approved as family planning drug or device. It bears mentioning
that the same provision even allows an independent evidence review group (ERG) to
ensure that evidence for or against the certification of a contraceptive drug or device is
duly considered.”