Silva v. Cabrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Belen Cabrera filed an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant in Lipa City and sell its produce in surrounding areas. Eliseo Silva and Opulencia & Lat, holders of existing certificates, opposed the application, arguing that existing service was adequate and public convenience did not require additional operation. Procedural History: Instead of conducting a hearing, the Public Service Commission (PSC) commissioned Atty. Antonio H. Aspillera, Chief of the Legal Division, to take the testimony of witnesses. Atty. Aspillera conducted hearings, received extensive oral and documentary evidence, and subsequently, the PSC en banc rendered a decision granting Cabrera a certificate for a 10-ton ice plant, overruling the oppositions. The Petition: Eliseo Silva filed a petition for review, assigning two errors: (1) the delegation to Atty. Aspillera was illegal and contrary to law as Section 3 prohibits hearings before anyone other than a Commissioner in contested cases; and (2) the decision was not supported by evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the delegation made by the Public Service Commission to Atty. Antonio H. Aspillera to take testimony in a contested case was illegal and contrary to Section 3 of the Public Service Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 178. Whether the decision granting the certificate of public convenience to Belen Cabrera was supported by evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of delegation and declared all proceedings thereunder null and void. The decision appealed from was also set aside, and the case was returned to the Public Service Commission for proper hearings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of delegation of authority to receive evidence: The Court held that the delegation made by the Public Service Commission to Atty. Antonio H. Aspillera to receive evidence in a contested case was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 3 of the Public Service Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 178. The law clearly states that in contested cases, only the Commission en banc is authorized to conduct the hearing, although it may delegate the reception of evidence to one of its Commissioners, who shall then report to the Commission en banc. Atty. Aspillera's actions, which included conducting hearings, receiving evidence, passing upon objections, and admitting exhibits, constituted more than just taking depositions; he acted as a quasi-commissioner. While Section 32 of the Public Service Act allows the Commission to commission its attorneys or chiefs of divisions to receive evidence, this provision must be read in conjunction with Section 3, as amended. The amendment by Republic Act No. 178 specifically restricted the delegation of reception of evidence in contested cases to one of the Commissioners. The Court emphasized that the Legislature, by amending Section 3, intended to entrust the holding of hearings and the reception of evidence in contested cases only to the Commissioners acting en banc or one of them when properly authorized. The Court acknowledged that this ruling might slow down the Commission's proceedings but stressed that the law must be followed. Therefore, the proceedings conducted by Atty. Aspillera were declared null and void. On the issue of evidence supporting the grant of the certificate: This issue was rendered moot by the Court's decision to set aside the proceedings due to the illegal delegation. Since the evidence was received illegally, it could not form a valid basis for the decision granting the certificate of public convenience.
Main Doctrine
Under Section 3 of the Public Service Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 178, the reception of evidence in a contested case can only be delegated to one of the Commissioners. Delegation to attorneys or chiefs of divisions of the Commission, or to clerks of court or justices of the peace, is limited to taking depositions or testimonies of witnesses under Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, not a full reception of evidence.