fundamental and essential requirements canot be taken away by legislation
because they are part of constitutional due process. FACTS:
9. Another is the case of GSIS v. CA, which affirms the non-applicability of the
Ang Tibay guidelines to preliminary investigations in criminal cases: the
investigating officer will never be the impartial tribunal required in Ang
Tibay, as amplified by the GSIS case. The purpose of the Office of the
Ombudsman in conducting a preliminary investigation is to determine
probable cause for filingan information.
10. The right to due process in administrative cases as prescribed in Ang Tibay,
as amplified in GSIS, are granted by the Constitution; hence these rights
cannot be taken away by mere legislation. On the other hand, as repeatedly
reiterated by this Court, the right to a preliminary investigation is merely a
statutory right, not part of the “fundamental and essential requirements” of
due process as prescribed in Ang Tibay and amplified in GSIS.
AMERICAN INTER-FASHION CORP. v. OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT (DANNAH)
May 23, 1991 | Gutierrez Jr., J. | Procedural Due Process: Findings of Administrative
Agencies
PETITIONER: American Inter-Fashion Corp.
RESPONDENTS: Office of the President, Garments and Textile Export Board,
Glorious Sun Fashion
SUMMARY: Glorious Sun’s export quotas were cancelled after the Garments
and Textile Export Board found out that Glorious was allegedly guilty of dollar
salting. Glorious filed an appeal in the SC but subsequently withdrew it, because
of the alleged pressure from Mr. Ongpin. The export quotas were then given to
American Inter-Fashion and De Soleil—alleged Marcos-crony operated
corporations.
Two years later, Glorious filed an appeal with the Office of the President which
reversed the decision of GTEB and remanded it to them because Glorious’
constitutional right to due process was violated. AIFC intervened with Glorious’
appeal, claiming that the case should be barred because of res judicata, and that
Glorious was accorded due process.
The Court ruled in favor of Glorious, stating that it was not barred by res judicata
because its dismissal was not a judgment on the merits, and the GTEB proceedings
violated Glorious’ right to due process.
DOCTRINE: Findings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and
finality, and generally should not be disturbed by the court. However, such factual
findings may be disregarded when they “are not supported by evidence; where the
findings are initiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedures
which lead to the factual findings are irregular; when palpable errors are
committed; or when grave abuse of discretion is manifest”.
1. The Garments and Textile Export Board (GTEB) found Glorious Sun gulty
of misdeclaration of imported raw materials resulting in dollar salting abroad
and therefore, its export quotas should be cancelled.
2. Its quotas were given to 2 newly-formed corps, De Soleil Apparel and
American Inter-Fashion (AIFC).
3. These two corps were joint ventures of the Hong Kong investors and majority
stockholders of Glorious Sun on one hand, and allegedly a member of the
family and a crony of Former Pres Marcos on the other.
4. The Office of the President set aside the GTEB decision and remanded the
case for genuine hearings where due process would be accorded to both
parties.
5. AIFC now alleges that the GTEB decision is res judicata and that Glorious
Sun was given every opportunity to be heard by the Board.
6. Glorious Sun has never been sequestered. The records also show that AIFC’s
sequestration has been lifted and apparently only De Soleil remains
sequestered.
7. The background of the case is as follows:
8. After said decision of the GTEB, Glorious filed a petition for certiorari with
the Court contending that its right to due process was violated, and that said
decision was not supported by substantial evidence. This was in June 1984.
9. The Court issued a resolution ordering GTEB to conduct further proceedings.
However, one month after, Glorious filed a manifestation of its intention to
withdraw the petition.
10. Another month after, the Court granted Glorious’ motion for withdrawal.
Two years later, Glorious filed a petition for the restitution of its export quota
allocation. Moreover, it alleged that the cancelling of its export quotas was
rendered as a result of duress, threats, intimidation and undue influence
exercised by former Minister Ongpin in order to transfer Glorious export
quotas to Marcos crony-owner corps.
11. Glorious also further alleged that it was coerced by Mr. Ongpin to withdraw
its petition.
12. On September 1987, the GTEB denied the petition of Glorious. An appeal
was taken to the Office of the President, which ruled in favor of Glorious,
finding the proceedings before the GTEB in 1984 irregular.
13. AIFC sought to intervene and is now assailing the appeal should be barred on
the ground of res judicata, and because they think Glorious was accorded due
process.
ISSUE/s:
1. WoN the previous GTEB decision constituted res judicata – NO
2. WoN respondent Glorious was accorded due process in the GTEB
proceedings of 1984 – NO
RULING:
RATIO:
1. For a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must
concur
a. It must be a final judgment
b. The court which resolved it has jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties
c. It must be a judgment on the merits
d. There must be identity between the two cases, as to the parties,
subject matter and cause of action
2. “A judgment on the merits is one rendered after a determination of which
party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon preliminary or
final or merely technical point.”
3. The dismissal of said case cannot be categorized as a judgment on the merits.
The dismissal was based solely on the notice of withdrawal by Glorious, and
not on the merits of the petition.
4. Moving to the issue on due process, the GTEB in the 1984 hearings failed to
disclose to Glorious vital evidence they used in arriving at their conclusion
that Glroious was guilty of dollar-salting.
5. The subsequent disclosure in 1987 of the GTEB to Glorious of the documents
did not cure the defect of non-disclosure of evidence.
6. The glaring fact is that Glorious was denied due process when the GTEB
failed to disclose evidence used by it in rendering its resolution (see GTEB
ratio in original case)
7. Moreover, just because other members would not agree that there was
pressure from Minister Ongpin to cancel the export quotas of Glorious does
not mean that Mr. Puno (who assailed said pressure from Ongpin) was not
telling the truth.
8. Findings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and finality, and
generally should not be disturbed by the court. However, such factual
findings may be disregarded when they “are not supported by evidence;
where the findings are initiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; where the
procedures which lead to the factual findings are irregular; when palpable
errors are committed; or when grave abuse of discretion is manifest”.
9. Glorious’ constitutional right to due process was violated because Glorious
was never given the chance to present its side before its export quota
allocations were revoked and its officers suspended.
10. **In case it is asked: the case does not fall under the jurisdiction of
Sandiganbayan.