Enriquez v. Ortega
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On December 16, 1949, Atilano M. Ortega filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant in Iba, Zambales. R.J. Enriquez & Co., an existing operator, opposed the application. Procedural History: The PSC authorized Atty. Antonio H. Aspillera, chief of its legal division, to receive evidence. Both parties presented their evidence before Atty. Aspillera. On January 15, 1951, the PSC granted Ortega's application based on the evidence received. Enriquez & Co. filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to set aside the decision, alleging lack of evidence support and contravention of law, invoking the ruling in Silva vs. Cabrera. Both motions were denied for lack of merit. The Petition: Enriquez & Co. filed a petition for review, arguing that the PSC's refusal to set aside its decision was erroneous because it contradicted the doctrine in Silva vs. Cabrera.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Service Commission (PSC) erred in refusing to set aside its decision on the ground that the evidence was received by a non-commissioner, despite the petitioner's participation in the proceedings without initial objection.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Public Service Commission did not err in refusing to set aside its decision. The doctrine in Silva vs. Cabrera is not applicable because the petitioner failed to interpose a timely objection to the delegation of the reception of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that while Section 3 of the Public Service Commission (PSC) Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 178, restricts the reception of evidence in contested cases to a Commissioner, this requirement is procedural in nature and can be waived. The Court emphasized that for a party to successfully challenge an unauthorized delegation, a 'timely objection' must be interposed at the beginning of the hearing or investigation before the person assigned to receive the evidence. In this case, the Petitioner appeared with witnesses, cross-examined Ortega's witnesses extensively, and presented its own evidence without ever questioning Attorney Aspillera's authority. The Court reasoned that if an objection is raised early and sustained, the trouble and expense of a full investigation can be avoided; however, waiting until after an adverse decision is rendered is inherently unfair to the prevailing party. By participating voluntarily throughout the entire process, the Petitioner is deemed to have waived any procedural defect regarding the hearing officer's qualifications. The Court distinguished the present case from Silva v. Cabrera (88 Phil. 381), noting that in the latter, the party had challenged the authority of the legal division chief from the very start of the proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The procedural requirement that the reception of evidence in a contested case before the Public Service Commission must be delegated only to a Commissioner can be waived by a party who fails to interpose a timely objection to such delegation. A timely objection must be raised at the beginning of the hearing, not after the evidence has been received.