[SUBJECT Admin] | [TOPIC Cardinal Primary Rights] 1

[Digest maker Kyle Subido]

CASE NAME Bachrach Motor Co. v CIR

[GR NO. L-26136] | [DATE Oct 30, 1978] | [PONENTE MUÑ OZ PALMA, J.]

CASE SUMMARY there was a labor dispute between Rural Transit and Rural Transit Employees
Association. Rural Transit had Maximo Jacob suspended for violations of Motor Vehicle Law (he had
an accident where the bus owned by the company was destroyed). P company presented Kaplin as
witness + documents signed by him but he went abroad so he wasn’t around for cross-examination.
CIR ruled IFO respondent since the documents and the testimony were stricken off the record for not
being subject to cross-examination. P went to the SC to challenge this ruling. SC Agreed with CIR.

DOCTRINE The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial
litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative tribunals with quasi-
judicial powers, is a fundamental right which is part of due process. A party has a right to cross-examine
opposing witnesses even in proceedings before administrative bodies.

FACTS bullet points

 P was in the transportation business, operated the “Rural Transit”
 1958: Rural Transit Employees Association(RTEA) went on strike and the dispute reached the
Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) for compulsory arbitration
o CIR issued order for the strikers to return to work and for the management to take them
back under the terms/conditions before the strike
 While the dispute was pending, P filed “Petition for Authority to discharge driver Maximo Jacob
from the service”
o Alleged violations of the Motor Vehicle Law resulting in damage to property and injuries
to 3rd parties  latest of w/c resulted in total destruction of bus 170
 Answer/Counter-petition filed by RTEA in behalf of Jacob denying the charges
o Accident was due to mechanical defect of the bus, beyond control of Jacob  suspension
not justified
 P presented its only witness, Joseph Kaplin, GM of Rural Transit + various documents
 Hearing rescheduled for cross-examination multiple times but Mr. Kaplin failed to appear coz
he was abroad
 RTEA filed motion to remove Kaplin’s testimony + denial of petition for authority to dismiss
Jacob + reinstate Jacob/backwages
 CIR Judge Martinez dismissed P’s petition (Ruled IFO Jacob/RTEA)  MR denied so petition for
certiorari w/ SC filed
ISSUE state all issues first. Bold the one related to the subject
1. WON the CIR erred in dismissing Petitioner’s petition? NO

RATIO Bold important words or phrases

1. WON the CIR erred in dismissing Petitioner’s petition? NO
 Petitioner only presented one witness to prove its case vs Jacob. He failed to appear at the
scheduled hearings for cross-examination because he left for abroad
o Respondent association was deprived, without fault on its part, of its right to cross-
examine Kaplin
 Entitled to have his testimony stricken off the record
  The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses in a judicial
litigation, be it criminal or civil in nature, or in proceedings before administrative
tribunals with quasi-judicial powers, is fundamental right which is part of due process .
( Savory Luncheonette v. Lakas ng Manggagawang Pilipino, et al.)
 Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete, that is, if the witness
has been wholly cross-examined by the adverse party or the right to cross-examine is
lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party.

 But when cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes
attributable to the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby
rendered incompetent.
 In the case of Savory, what happened there was that the witness finished his testimony and
was ready for cross-examination but the adverse counsel kept postponing until the witness had
a heart attack. They then tried to have his testimony stricken. The court ruled that by their acts,
they impliedly waived their right to cross-examination
o such a right may be forfeited by a party litigant through his own conduct
 IN THIS CASE: P said they were ready to present another witness (Mrs. Silva) to identify the
documents presented by P.  HOWEVER, DID NOT CALL ON THAT WITNESS DURING
HEARING
o Respondent counsel only admitted the signatures of Mr. Kaplin, NOT THE TRUTH AND
CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENTS  respondent still entitled to cross-examine
 especially if they adversely affected the substantial rights of the party
against whom they were being presented, namely, driver Maximo Jacob
 Counsel of P should have inquired if the respondent was admitting likewise the
veracity of the documents  admitted by respondent court only for "whatever
they may be worth."
 Court eventually did not consider these documents in deciding the case
since it was not supported by supporting testimony from Kaplin  NO
EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CHARGES
 No error was committed when the CIR, without receiving evidence, granted relief to private
respondent herein on its counter-petition.
o Since the petition was dismissed, the reinstatement + backwages is a necessary
consequence thereof  doesn’t need evidence to be granted
o Burden was on company to prove such suspension was valid  the failed to prove such
 Backwages Issue: judicial trend to fix reasonable period to avoid protracted delay in post-
judgment hearings to prove or disprove earnings of the worker elsewhere during the period he
had not been reinstated to his employment.  In this case, considered to be 3 years

DECISION bullet points. Don’t copy and paste

 CIR AFFIRMED

Delete gray parts