ANG TIBAY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

ANG TIBAY v.

COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


G.R. No. 46496, February 27, 1940

FACTS
Ang Tibay, represented by Toribio Teodoro, manager and proprietor, and the National
Workers Brotherhood, petitioners, filed a case against the Court of Industrial Relations and the
National Labor Union, Inc., respondents. The case involves the alleged unlawful dismissal of 89
laborers affiliated with the National Labor Union Inc. by Ang Tibay. The Solicitor-General and
the National Labor Union Inc. filed motions for reconsideration and a new trial, respectively.
The main contention of the National Labor Union Inc. is that the supposed lack of leather
materials claimed by Ang Tibay as the reason for laying off the laborers was fabricated to
systematically dismiss union members. They also argue that the National Workers Brotherhood
Union of Ang Tibay is illegal and dominated by Toribio Teodoro. The petitioners assert that the
evidence they wish to present, including records from the Bureau of Customs and books of
accounts of leather dealers, is crucial and would necessitate a modification or reversal of the
judgment.

ISSUE
Whether the evidence presented by the petitioners, including records from the Bureau of
Customs and books of accounts of leather dealers, is crucial and relevant to the case and whether
the National Workers Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is illegal and dominated by Toribio
Teodoro.

RULING
The Supreme Court grants the motion for a new trial. The Court emphasizes the
fundamental principles of due process, including the right to a hearing, the duty of the tribunal to
consider the evidence presented, and the requirement of rendering decisions based on substantial
evidence. The Court finds that the evidence sought to be presented by the petitioners could be
crucial and relevant to the case. The case is remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with
instructions to reopen the case, receive all relevant evidence, and proceed in accordance with due
process requirements. The ruling upholds the principles of the Bill of Rights, particularly the
right to due process, ensuring fair treatment and protection of the parties' rights in the
proceedings.

You might also like