NDC Vs Collector of Customs
NDC Vs Collector of Customs
NDC Vs Collector of Customs
430
432
433
“x x x 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.
“x x x There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in
proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is 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. 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. 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.
Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion,
434
but the evidence must be substantial. 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. The Court of Industrial Relations 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. The Court of Industrial Relations
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.” (Ang Tibay, et al. v. The
Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 40 O.G., No. 11, Supp. p. 29).
There is, therefore, no point in the contention that the court a quo
has no jurisdiction over the present case because what is here
involved is not whether the imposition of the fine by the Collector of
Customs on the operator of the ship is correct or not but whether he
acted properly in imposing said fine without first giving the operator
an opportunity to be heard. Here we said that he acted improvidently
and so the action taken against him is in accordance with Rule 67 of
our Rules of Court.
Another point raised is that petitioners have brought this action
prematurely for they have not yet exhausted all the administrative
remedies available to them, one of which is to appeal the ruling to
the Commissioner of Customs. This may be true, but such step we
do not consider a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law as would prevent petitioners from taking the present
action, for it is undisputed that respondent collector has acted in
utter disregard of the principle of due process.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.
Decision affirmed.
435
______________
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.