G.R. No.

L-46496             February 27, 1940

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:

Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which
supplies the Philippine Army. Due to an 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 Worker’s Brotherhood) 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 to a
new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The Court granted a
new trial. Thus, the Solicitor General, arguing for the CIR, filed a motion for
reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not due process was violated?

Held:
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 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 (Goseco vs. Court of Industrial
Relations et al., G. R. No. 46673). The fact, 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, in justiciable cases
coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative
character.
The court 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.