This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-07 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| To the same effect is the following statement of Mr. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, albeit in a dissenting opinion, in Agabon: "[t]his is not to hold that a trial-type proceeding is required to be conducted by employers. Hearings before the employers prior to the dismissal are in the nature of and akin to administrative due process which is free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements," citing Mr. Justice Laurel's dictum in the landmark Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations. We have even held in China Banking Corporation v. Borromeo[34] that no formal administrative investigation is necessary in the process of dismissing an employee where the employee expressly admitted his infraction. All that is needed is to inform the employee of the findings of management. | |||||
|
2007-09-14 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Second, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in the courts of law.[29] Hence, whatever merit C.F. Sharp's argument might have in the context of ordinary civil actions, where the rules of evidence apply with greater rigidity, disappears when adduced in connection with labor cases. | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Further, the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are non-litigious in nature.[40] As such, the proceedings before it are not bound by the technical niceties of the law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law,[41] as dictated by Article 221 of the Labor Code: ART. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement. In any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. This rule applies equally to both the employee and the employer. In the interest of due process, the Labor Code directs labor officials to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities or formalities.[42] What is essential is that every litigant is given reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his right, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor,[43] which undoubtedly, was done in this case. | |||||