8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

1/10

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio,236 U.S.230(1915), was a court case decided by theUnited States Supreme ourtin1915, in which, in a 9!0 "ote, the ourt ru#ed that the $ree speech protection o$the%hio onstitution& which was substantia##y simi#ar to the 'irstmendment o$ the United States onstitution& did not etend to motionpictures.*he state +o"ernment o$%hiohad passed a statute in 1913 $ormin+ a boardo$ censorswhich had the duty o$ re"iewin+ and appro"in+ a## $i#ms intended tobe ehibited in the state. *he board char+ed a $ee $or the appro"a# ser"ice.

*he board cou#d order the arrest o$ anyone showin+ an unappro"ed $i#m in thestate.

Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission ofOhiohere pro"isions $or censorship o$ mo"in+ pictures re#ate on#y to $i#msintended $or ehibition within the state and they are distributed to persons

within the state $or ehibition, there is no burden imposed on interstatecommerce.*he doctrine o$ ori+ina# pac-a+e does not etend to mo"in+ picture $i#mstransported, de#i"ered, and used as shown in the record in this case, a#thou+h

manu$actured in, and brou+ht $rom, another state.o"in+ picture $i#ms brou+ht $rom another state to be rented or so#d by theconsi+nee to ehibitors are in consumption and min+#ed as much as $rom theirnature they can be with other property o$ the state, and sub/ect to its otherwise"a#id po#ice re+u#ation, e"en be$ore the consi+nee de#i"ers to the ehibitor.*he /udicia# sense, supportin+ the common sense o$ this country, sustains theeercise o$ the po#ice power o$ re+u#ation o$ mo"in+ picture ehibitions.*he ehibition o$ mo"in+ pictures is a business, pure and simp#e, ori+inatedand conducted $or pro$it #i-e other spectac#es, and not to be re+arded as part o$the press o$ the country or as or+ans o$ pub#ic opinion within the meanin+ o$$reedom o$ speech and pub#ication +uaranteed by the onstitution o$ %hio.*his ourt wi## not anticipate the decision o$ the state court as to the

app#ication o$ a po#ice statute o$ the state to a state o$ $acts not in"o#"ed in therecord o$ the case be$ore it. uaere whether mo"in+ pictures ehibited inp#aces other than p#aces o$ amusement shou#d $a## within the pro"isions o$ thecensorship statute o$ %hio.hi#e administration and #e+is#ation are distinct powers and the #ine thatseparates their eercise is not easi#y de$ined, the #e+is#ature must dec#are thepo#icy o$ the #aw and $i the #e+a# princip#es to contro# in +i"en cases, and anadministrati"e body may be c#othed with power to ascertain $acts andconditions to which such po#icy and princip#es app#y.

t is impossib#e to eact#y speci$y such app#ication in e"ery instance, and the+enera# terms o$ censorship, whi#e $urnishin+ no eact standardo$ reuirements may +et precision $rom the sense and eperience o$ men andbecome certain and use$u# +uides in reasonin+ and conduct. hetherpro"isions in a state statute c#othin+ a board or on+ress composed o$ o$$icers$rom that and other states with power amount to such de#e+ation o$ #e+is#ati"epower as to render the pro"isions unconstitutiona# wi## not be determined bythis ourt in a case in which it appears that such on+ress is sti## noneistent.*he mo"in+ picture censorship act o$ %hio o$ 1913 is not in "io#ation o$ the

$edera# onstitution or the onstitution o$ the State o$ %hio either as depri"in+the owners o$ mo"in+ pictures o$ their property without due process o$ #aw oras a burden on interstate commerce, or as abrid+in+ $reedom and #iberty o$speech and opinion, or as de#e+atin+ #e+is#ati"e authority to administrati"eo$$icers.

*he ourt described mo"ies in some technica# detai# and noted theirpopu#arity, but wrote they may be used $or e"i#, and $or this reason, ecannot re+ard 4the censorship o$ mo"ies as beyond the power o$ +o"ernment.*he ourt added it wou#d be eua##y unreasonab#e to +rant $ree speechprotection to the theater or the circus, and noted that in many prior casesre+ardin+ +o"ernment #icensure o$ theatrica# per$ormances, the issue o$

$reedom o$ opinion had not been raised.*he p#ainti$$ wasutua# 'i#m orporation

, a mo"ie distributor. utua# had a#soar+ued that in addition to the "io#ation o$ its $reedom o$ speech, the censorshipboard was inter$erin+ with interstate commercein "io#ation o$ theormantommerce #ause7 and that the +o"ernment had i##e+a##y de#e+ated #e+is#ati"eauthority to a censor board. *hese ar+uments were dismissed by the ourtmore per$unctori#y.*he decision that motion pictures did not merit 'irst mendment protectiondro"e increased re+u#ation o$ mo"ie content, cu#minatin+ in the en$orcement in8u#y 193 o$ the :roduction odeo"er a## ;o##ywood $i#ms. *he :roductionode was not #aw, but an a+reement between studios and theaters to se#$!censor, in part to preempt the patchwor- o$ #oca# censorship #aws that eisted

around the country. n ay 1952, the Supreme ourt o"erru#edits utua# decision in 8oseph

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

2/10

Supreme ourtwhich #ar+e#y mar-ed the dec#ine o$ motionpicturecensorshipin the United States.41t determined that pro"isions o$theAew Bor-Cducation =aw which a##owed a censor to $orbid the commercia#showin+ o$ a motion picture $i#m it deemed to be sacri#e+ious was a restrainton$reedom o$ speech and thereby a "io#ation o$ the 'irst mendment.

*he case was an appea# to the Supreme ourt by $i#m distributor8osephmore. #icense readG*he director o$ the 4motion picture di"ision 4o$ the education department or,

when authoriEed by the re+ents, the o$$icers o$ a #oca# o$$ice or bureau sha##cause to be prompt#y eamined e"ery motion picture $i#m submitted to them asherein reuired, and un#ess such $i#m or a part thereo$ is obscene, indecent,immora#, inhuman, sacri#e+ious, or is o$ such a character that its ehibition

wou#d tend to corrupt mora#s or incite to crime, sha## issue a #icense there$or. $such director or, when so authoriEed, such o$$icer sha## not #icense any $i#msubmitted, he sha## $urnish to the app#icant there$or a written report o$ thereasons $or his re$usa# and a description o$ each re/ected part o$ a $i#m notre/ected in toto.

Background Information hi+h#y contro"ersia# $i#m, *he irac#e, produced in ta#y and starrin+ nnaa+nani, had been #icensed $or showin+ in Aew Bor- and had been screenedin the city $or about ei+ht wee-s. Stron+#y ne+ati"e pub#ic reaction caused the#icense to be withdrawn on the +rounds that the mo"ie was sacri#e+ious. *hedistributor o$ the $i#m $i#ed suit cha##en+in+ the restriction a+ainst sacri#i+ious$i#ms. *he #aw in uestion statedG The director of the [motion picture] division

[of the education department] or, when authorized by the regents, the officersof a local office or bureau shall cause to be promptly examined every motion

picture film submitted to them as herein required, and unless such film or apart thereof is obscene, indecent, immoral, inhuman, sacrilegious, or is of sucha character that its exhibition would tend to corrupt morals or incite to crime,

shall issue a license therefore. If such director or, when so authorized, suchofficer shall not license any film submitted, he shall furnish to the applicanttherefor a written report of the reasons for his refusal and a description of eachreected part of a film not reected in toto.ccordin+ to the distributor, a state #aw a##owin+ $or $i#ms to be banned $oressentia##y re#i+ous reasons "io#ated o$ the 'irst and 'ourteenth mendments.

Court ecisionn a unanimous ru#in+, the Supreme ourt a+reed with the p#ainti$$>s ar+uments

Admin Digests 01-21-2014 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrilegehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speechhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speechhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstynhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstynhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstynhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)#The_Miraclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)#The_Miraclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_neorealismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Rossellinihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Fellinihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Fellinihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Magnanihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Maryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Maryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Cocteauhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Cocteauhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Voicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Film_Critics_Circlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Film_Critics_Circlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_the_State_of_New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegramhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegramhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Education_Departmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Education_Departmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restrainthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restrainthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_signhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorshiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrilegehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speechhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstynhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstynhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)#The_Miraclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)#The_Miraclehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_neorealismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Rossellinihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Fellinihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Magnanihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Maryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthology_filmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Amore_(film)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Cocteauhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Voicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtitleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Film_Critics_Circlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Film_Critics_Circlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_the_State_of_New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegramhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Education_Departmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Education_Departmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Burstyn,_Inc_v._Wilson#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yorkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restrainthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_sign

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

3/10

and struc- down the Aew Bor- State #aw a##owin+ $or sacri#e+ious $i#ms to bebanned $rom pub#ic showin+s. ccordin+ to the ourt, $i#ms are an importantmedium $or communicatin+ ideas in society, somethin+ not #essened by the$act that they are a#so desi+ned to entertain. Cpression by means o$ $i#m thusdeser"es the same protections o$ #iberty under the 'irst mendment as those$or newspapers, boo-s, ma+aEines, etc.*he idea that some $orm o$ epression can be banned because it is deemedsacri#e+ious was re/ected $or two reasons. 'irst, the standard was too "a+ueGn see-in+ to app#y the broad and a##!inc#usi"e de$inition o$ sacri#e+ious +i"en

by the Aew Bor- courts, the censor is set adri$t upon a bound#ess sea amid amyriad o$ con$#ictin+ currents o$ re#i+ious "iews, with no charts but thosepro"ided by the most "oca# and power$u# orthodoies.Second, the state has no #e+itimate interest in protectin+ any one or e"en a##re#i+ious +roups $rom "iews which they $ind to be distaste$u#.4'rom the standpoint o$ $reedom o$ speech and the press, it is enou+h to pointout that the state has no #e+itimate interest in protectin+ any or a## re#i+ions$rom "iews distaste$u# to them which is su$$icient to /usti$y prior restraints uponthe epression o$ those "iews. t is not the business o$ +o"ernment in ournation to suppress rea# or ima+ined attac-s upon a particu#ar re#i+ious doctrine,

whether they appear in pub#ications, speeches, or motion pictures.

!ignificance*his was the $irst case where motion pictures were $ound to be protected bythe 'irst mendment. *he ourt thus o"erru#ed utua# 'i#m orp. ". ndustria#ommission (1915), where the ourt had said that the ehibition o$ mo"in+pictures was a business pure and simp#e, conducted $or pro$it, #i-e otherspectac#es, and was not to be re+arded as part o$ the press o$ the country oras or+ans o$ pub#ic opinion.

"#C$ v. !ec. of %ducation &'())*

'actsG ct Ao. 2H06 is entit#ed In ct ma-in+ the inspection and reco+nitiono$ pri"ate schoo#s and co##e+es ob#i+atory $or the Sec. o$ :ub#ic nstruction.JUnder its pro"isions, the ept. o$ Cducation has, $or the past 3H years,super"ised and re+u#ated a## pri"ate schoo#s in this country wKo protest and

with the +enera# acuiescence o$ the +enera# pub#ic

*he :hi#ippine ssociation o$ o##e+es and Uni"ersities made a petition thatcts Ao. 2H06 otherwise -nown as the Ict ma-in+ the nspection and@eco+nition o$ pri"ateschoo#s and co##e+es ob#i+atory $or the Secretary o$:ub#ic nstructionJ and wasamended by ct Ao. 30H5 and ommonwea#th ct

Ao. 1?0 be dec#ared unconstitutiona# on the +rounds that 1) the act depri"esthe owner o$ the schoo# and co##e+es as we## as teachers and parents o$ #ibertyand property without due process o$ =aw7 2) it wi## a#so depri"e the parents o$their Aatura# @i+hts and duty to reartheir chi#dren $or ci"ic e$$iciency and 3) itspro"isions con$erred on the Secretary o$ Cducation un#imited powers anddiscretion to prescribe ru#es and standards constitute towardsun#aw$u# de#e+ation o$ =e+is#ati"e powers.Section 1 o$ ct Ao. 2H06It sha## be the duty o$ the Secretary o$ :ub#ic nstruction to maintain a +enera#

standard o$ e$$iciency in a## pri"ate schoo#s and co##e+es o$ the :hi#ippines sothat the same sha## $urnish adeuate instruction to the pub#ic, in accordance

with the c#ass and +rade o$ instruction +i"en in them, and $or this purpose saidSecretary or his du#y authoriEed representati"e sha## ha"e authority to ad"ise,inspect, and re+u#ate said schoo#s and co##e+es in order to determine thee$$iciency o$ instruction +i"en in the same.J

:etitioner co##e+es and uni"ersities a##e+e that ct Ao. 2H06 as amended byct Ao. 30H5 and Ao. 1?0 is unconstitutiona# becauseGa. *hey depri"e owners o$ schoo#s and co##e+es L teachers and parents o$#iberty and property wKo due process o$ #awb. *hey depri"e parents o$ their natura# ri+ht and duty to rear their chi#dren $or

ci"ic e$$iciencyc. *heir pro"isions con$errin+ on the Sec. o$ Cducation un#imited power anddiscretion to prescribe ru#es and standards constitute an un#aw$u# de#e+ation o$#e+is#ati"e power

*he petitioner a#so comp#ain that securin+ a permit to the Secretary o$Cducation be$ore openin+ a schoo# is not ori+ina##y inc#uded in the ori+ina# ct2H06. nd in support to the $irst proposition o$ the petitioners they contendedthat the onstitution +uaranteed the ri+ht o$ a citiEen to own and operate aschoo# and any #aw reuirin+ pre"ious +o"ernmenta# appro"a# or permit be$oresuch person cou#d eercise the said ri+ht %n the other hand, the de$endant=e+a# @epresentati"e submitted a memorandum contendin+ that 1) the matters

presented no /usticiab#e contro"ersy ehibitin+ una"oidab#e necessity o$decidin+ the constitutiona# uestion7 2) :etitioners are in estoppe#s tocha##en+e the "a#idity o$ the said act and 3) the ct is constitutiona##y"a#id. *hus, the petition $or prohibition was dismissed by the court.

SSUCS L @*%S

1. Wo+ the reuirement of a permit -efore opening a private school

Admin Digests 01-21-2014 3

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

4/10

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

5/10

*here$ore, the court denied the petition $or prohibition.

C%01#+2%! 1!. #$I2O034%+%0#5 &'()6*

'*SG enon er"antes, ana+er o$ the Aationa# baca and %ther 'ibersorporation (A'%) recei"in+ :15,000 sa#ary a year, assai#ed the decision o$the uditor Nenera# denyin+ his c#aim $or uarters a##owance.

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

6/10

authoriEin+ the de#e+ation $urnishes areasonab#e standard which su$$icient#ymar-s the $ie#d within which the dministrator is to act so that it may be -nown

whether he has -ept within it in comp#iance with the #e+is#ati"e wi##.@eG pp#ication to this casen this case, Sec H o$ @ 265 con$erred upon the onetary

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

7/10

AN G T IBA Y v C O UR T OF INDU S T R I A L R E L A T IO N S69 Phil 635LAUREL; Februr! "#$ %9&'

FACTS- The respondent National Labor Union, Inc. prayed for the vacation of the judgmentrendered by the majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Courtof Industrial elations for a ne! trial. The union avers that" Teodoro#s claim thatthere !as shortage of leather soles in $N% TI&$' ma(ing it necessary for him totemporarily lay off the members of the union is enti rely false and unsupported by

the records of the &ureau of Customs and the &oo(s of $ccounts of native dealersin leather) that the National *or(er#s &rotherhood of $N% TI&$' is a company oremployer union dominated by Teodoro, the e+istence and functions of !hich areillegal) that the employer Toribio Teodoro !as guilty of unfair labor practice fordiscriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring theNational *or(ers# &rotherhood) that important documents attached are inaccessible tothe respondents.

ISSUE*N the union !as denied procedural due process by the CI

(ELD NO)The CI, a special court created under C$ /, is more an administrative than a partof the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere

receptive organ of the %overnment. Unli(e a court of justice !hich is essentiallypassive, acting only !hen its jurisdiction is invo(ed and deciding only cases that arepresented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CI is more active, affirmativeand dynamic. It not only e+ercises judicial or 0uasi - judicial functions in thedetermination of disputes bet!een employers and employees but its functionsin the determination of disputes bet!een employers and employees but itsfunctions are far more comprehensive and e+pensive. It has jurisdiction over theentire 1hilippines, to consider, investigate, dec ide, and settle any 0uestion, mattercontroversy or dispute arising bet!een, and2or affecting employers and employees orlaborers, and regulate the relations bet!een them. It may appeal to voluntaryarbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes) may employ mediation orconciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system of officialinvestigation and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific

controversies bet!een labor and capital industry and in agriculture. There is inreality here a mingling of e+ecutive and judicial functions, !hich is a departure fromthe rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental po!ers.

The CI is not narro!ly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the $ctre0uires it to 3act according to justice and e0uity and substantial merits of the case,!ithout regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by anytechnicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legalevidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just ande0uitable.3 It shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made

by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the a!ard,order or decision any matter or determination !hich may be deemed necessary ore+pedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial oragricultural disputes. $nd in the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this Courthave been especially regulated by the rules recently promulgated by the rulesrecently promulgated by this Court to carry into the effect the avo!ed legislativepurpose.The fact, ho!ever, that the CI may be said to be free from the rigidity of certainprocedural re0uirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it,entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential re0uirements of due

process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There areprimary rights !hich must be respected even in proceedings of this character"45 The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes theright of the par ty interested or affected to present his own case and submitevidence in support thereof. The liberty and property of the citi6en shall beprotected by the rudimentary re0uirements of fair play.475 Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and toadduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but thetribunal must consider the evidence presented.4/5 While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decideright, it does imply a necessitywhich cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to supportit is a nullity, a place when directly attached. This principle emanates from themore fundamental is contrary to the vesting of unlimited po!er any!here. La! is both

a grant and a limitation upon po!er.485 Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding orconclusion, but t he evidence must besubstantial. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept asade0uate to support a conclusion. 9ere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does notconstitute substantial evidence.4:5 The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at thehearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the partiesaffected. nly by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence disclosedto the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to (no! and meet the caseagainst them. It should not, ho!ever, detract from their duty actively to see thatthe la! is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the authori6ed legal methods ofsecuring evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to thecontroversy. &oards of in0uiry may be appointed for the purpose of investigating anddetermining the facts in any given case, but their report and decision are onlyadvisory. 4;5 The CIR *r +! *, i-. /u01e.$ -here,*re$ 2u.- - *+ i-. *r hi. *4+i+0ee+0e+- *+.i0er-i*+ *, -he l4 +0 ,-. *, -he *+-r*ver.!$ +0 +*-.i2l! e- -he vie4. *, .ub*r0i+-e i+ rrivi+1 - 0ei.i*+)4

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

8/10

agreement bet!een the $ng Tibay and the National *or(er#s &rotherhood, the recordis barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon !hichto predicate, in a national !ay, a conclusion of la!.- This result, ho!ever, does not no! preclude the concession of a ne! trial prayedfor the by respondent National Labor Union, Inc. The interest of justice !ould bebetter served if the movant is given opportun ity to present at the hearing thedocuments referred to in his motion and such other evidence as may be relevantto the main issue involved. The legislation !hich created the CI is ne!. Thefailure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to theparties adversely affected by the result. $ccordingly, the motion for a ne! trial is

grant ed, and the entire record of the case shall be remanded to the CI.

#!"0%C 1 I2C9O+SA;CQ, pri# 30, 1966, :etition $or re"iew'*S!:ri"ate respondent 8acinto ;ernandeE (;ernandeE) $i#edan administrati"e comp#aint a+ainst #eto sprec $or unpro$essiona#conduct withthe @espondent

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

9/10

an in"esti+atin+ administrati"e body.*he p#an a##e+ed#y made by sprec was not the p#an o$ an ori+ina# sur"ey buta mere copy $rom another p#an. !C0# ?)?, "#+4#+IB#+@ January ;, '((=+#2$0% Specia# ci"i# action o$ certiorari

F#C2!! =eonides .

8/13/2019 Admin Digests 01-21-2014

10/10

=? !C0# 6@ M$OD3"#5M#@ Octo-er ;E, '(=

+#2$0% :etition $or certiorari

F#C2!!n 195? the s petition, #i$ted the suspension o$ dri"er

8acob, and ordered his reinstatement with bac-wa+es!$achrachs motion $or reconsideration ha"in+ been denied, it $i#ed the instant:etition $or certiorari

I!!$% WO+ the CI0 erred in ordering the dismissal of Bachrach'spetition to discharge MaAimo Jaco-

9%5 A%Ratio*he ri+ht o$ a party to con$ront and cross!eamine opposin+ witnesses in a

/udicia# #iti+ation, be it crimina# or ci"i# in nature, or in proceedin+s be$oreadministrati"e tribuna#s with uasi!/udicia# powers, is a $undamenta# ri+ht whichis part o$ due process.Reasoning!@ did not err in orderin+ the dismissa# o$ $achrachs petition to dischar+e

aimo 8acob. :etitioner presented on#y one witness, 8oseph Rap#in, to pro"eits case a+ainst dri"er 8acob. *he witness $ai#ed howe"er to appear at theschedu#ed hearin+s $or his cross!eamination $or the simp#e reason that he #e$t$or abroad. ;a"in+ been depri"ed, without $au#t on its part, o$ its ri+ht to cross!eamine Rap#in, respondent association was entit#ed to ha"e the directtestimony o$ the witness stric-en o$$ the record.!n &rtigas -r. v. uftansa /erman (irlines, 19H5, this ourt he#d inter aliaG&ral testimony may be ta0en into account only when it is complete, that is, ifthe witness has been wholly cross1examined by the adverse party or the rightto cross1examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party.