DIFFERENTIATE a.

Statement of the Case from Statement of the Nature of the Case The statement of the case is the summary of all the important proceedings undertaken by the parties, from the lower courts until it reached the Supreme Court. As for the statement of the nature of the case, it refers to the procedural remedy that has recently been undertaken before the Supreme Court. The Statement of the Nature of the Case likewise names the court where it recently came from. b. Statement of the Nature of the Case from Statement of Facts The statement of facts is a clear and concise narrative of the events which led to the filing of the case. The statement of the nature of the case, on the other hand, is a clear and concise statement of the procedural remedy sought in filing the case. c. Holding from Dispositive Portion The holding provides for the affirmative or negative answers to the issues presented before the Court. It is the Courts determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in a particular case, whereas the dispositive portion is the Courts final determination of the lawsuit. The disposition settles the conflict once and for all.

FUNCTION OF TITLE OF THE CASE The title names the case. It serves as its general identity. In citing cases, the mention of its title is sufficient.

FUNCTION OF DOCKET NUMBER AND DATE OF PROMULGATION OF A DECISION The docket number and the date of promulgation identify a case. Each case is assigned a docket number which is essential in filing and retrieval of documents. With the great number of cases decided each year, identifying them based solely with the names of the parties involved would be too burdensome.

COMPONENTS OF A BRIEF The following are the components of a brief: 1. Citation The citation tells where the decision can be found. It includes the

title, the docket number and the date of promulgation of the case.

2. Parties This component names the parties, points out their litigation status and their relationship with each other, as described in the decision.

3. Objective of the Parties This part tells what each of the parties are seeking for or the end result sough to be achieved.

4. Theory of Litigation This part sets out the cause/s of action of the plaintiff and the defense/s of the defendant.

5. Prior Proceedings This part pertains the course of actions which the case went through. It pertains to the other courts decision.

6. Statement of the Facts This part is a clear and concise narrative of the events which led to the filing of the case.

7. Statement of the Issue/s This part states the arguments which need to be resolved. They must be deduced from the facts.

8. Holding The holding refers to the affirmative or negative answer to the issue/s. It is the Courts determination of the matter of the case based on the issue/s presented in the case.

9. Dispositive Portion

The dispositive portion or the disposition settles or resolves the conflict once and for all.

10. Concurring/Dissenting Opinion These are the separate written opinions of judges, expressing either agreement (concurring) or disagreement (dissenting) with the majority decision of the Court. They may not be binding but have persuasive authority.

Memorandum Statement of the case

FACTS
1. Petitioner Ang Tibay is a leather company owned and managed by

Toribio Teodoro. Petitioner National Workers Brotherhood (NWB) is one of the two labor unions in the company.
2. Respondent National Labor Union (NLU) is the other labor union

whose members were laid off allegedly due to shortage of leather supplies.
3. NLU then filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against Ang

Tibay before the CIR.

4. Absent the records of the bureau of Customs and the Books of

Accounts of native dealers in leather which could have served as evidence to prove NLUs averments, the CIR still proceeded with the case. CIR rendered a decision in favor of NLU. 5. By way of certiorari on the decision of the CIR, Ang Tibay elevated the case to the Supreme Court. Finding his claim reasonable, the SC ruled in favor of Ang Tibay.
6. NLU now filed a motion for a new trial as they were not able to

present their evidence before in the CIR. The Solicitor-General, in behalf of the CIR, filed a motion for reconsideration for the SCs earlier decision.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE: Was the NLU denied due process of law?

ARGUMENTS NLU was denied due process of law. Trials and investigations of an administrative character have fundamental and essential requirements so as not to deny anyone his right to due process. There are the cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character: 1. Right to a hearing which includes the right to present evidence 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented The decision must have something to support itself The evidence must be substantial The decision must be rendered based on the evidence presented The tribunal must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy; and 7. The tribunal must, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved. During the trial in the CIR, certain records which should have served as evidence and should have affected the judgment rendered were absent. NLU was not afforded the first primary right. NLU was not able to present their evidence, the recors of the . Thus, NLU was denied the right tot due process of law.

RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial be GRANTED. Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.