Need for Previous Notice and Hearing

General Rule: Administrative rules of GENERAL application do NOT require previous notice
and hearing.
Exception:
When the legislature itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall be
based on certain facts as determined at an appropriate investigation.
If the regulation is in effect a settlement of a controversy between specific parties, it
is considered an administrative adjudication, requiring notice and hearing.
Notice and Hearing
The right to notice and hearing is essential to due process and its non-observance will as a
rule invalidate the administrative proceedings. Persons are entitled to be notified of any
pending case affecting their interests so that, if they are minded, they may claim the right to
appear therein and present their side or refute the position of opposing parties.
Nevertheless, there are instances when notice and hearing can validly be omitted. Among
the justifications for such omissions are the urgency of immediate action (which does not
preclude the enjoyment of the right at a later time without prejudice to the person affected)
and the fact that the right had previously been offered but not claimed.
Administrative Due Process
While administrative determinations of contested case are by their nature judicial, there is
no requirement for strict adherence to technical rules as are observed in truly judicial
proceedings.
It is a general rule that they are unrestricted by the technical or formal rules of procedure
which govern trials before a court. This rule is applied to questions of evidence, pleading
and other matters.
Nevertheless, it is essential that due process must be observed, for the requirements of fair
play are not applicable to judicial proceedings only.
Cardinal rights or principles to be observed in administrative proceedings:
1)
2)
3)
4)

The first of these rights is the right to a hearing;

The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
The tribunal must have something to support its decision;
Evidence must be substantial evidence relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion
5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
6) The court must act on its or their own independent consideration of the law and facts
of controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision;
7) The court should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered
It is basic to due process that the tribunal considering the administrative question be
impartial, to ensure a fair decision.

The law does not require another notice and hearing for a review of the decision of the
board.
Ang Tibay vs. CIR
Facts:
Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the
Philippine Army. Due to 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 Workers 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 for a new trial on the ground of
newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The Solicitor General,
arguing for the CIR, filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is entitled to a new trial.
Ruling:
Yes. The records show that the newly discovered evidence or documents obtained by NLU,
which they attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence so inaccessible to them at
the time of the trial that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected
to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. Further,
the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that
their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment
rendered (said newly obtained records include books of business/inventory accounts by Ang
Tibay which were not previously accessible but already existing).
The SC also outlined that administrative bodies, like the CIR, although not strictly bound by
the Rules of Court must also make sure that they comply to the requirements of due
process. For administrative bodies, due process can be complied with by observing the
following:
(1)
The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
(2)
Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce
evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the
evidence presented.
(3)
While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does
imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support
its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity, a place when directly
attached.
(4)
Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the
evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.

(5)
The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
(6)
The administrative body or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
(7)
The administrative body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in
such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and
the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the
authority conferred upon it.