Halili v. Comision De Servicio Publico
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fortunato F. Halili, operating under the name "Halili Transit," engaged in the business of transporting passengers and cargo via buses. Antonio Heras was authorized by the Public Service Commission (PSC) to operate fifteen (15) buses on the City Hall (Manila)-Balara line. Procedural History: On June 30, 1952, the PSC issued an ex-parte order, altering Heras's route to include Avenida Silangan and the University of the Philippines, instead of the San Juan-Marikina Road and Baranka Road, without notifying affected operators like Halili. On July 7, 1952, the PSC issued another ex-parte order, further altering the route of eight of Heras's buses to pass through Quezon Boulevard, Quezon Boulevard Extension, University Avenue, and the University of the Philippines to Balara (the "Derecho route"), instead of the previously authorized route, in response to Heras's motion for a provisional permit. The Petition: Halili contended that the PSC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing these orders without notice and hearing, causing irreparable loss to his business. He sought the revocation of both orders.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of June 30, 1952, and July 7, 1952, without prior notice and hearing to affected operators. Whether the PSC has the power to amend or correct its decisions motu proprio without affording parties an opportunity to be heard, especially when such amendments affect substantial rights.
Ruling
The Court revoked the order of June 30, 1952, and denied the petition with respect to the order of July 7, 1952. The Court held that while the PSC has the power to amend its decisions, this power is limited and cannot be exercised to substantially alter routes or affect the rights of parties without due notice and hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and the PSC's power to amend decisions: The Court held that the PSC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of June 30, 1952, ex-parte. While Section 16(m) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 grants the PSC the power to amend, modify, or revoke certificates, this power is explicitly conditioned upon "proper notice and hearing." The alteration of Heras's route was not a mere clerical correction but a substantial change that directly impacted Halili's business, causing him irreparable loss. To allow such amendments without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard would violate the fundamental right to due process. The Court emphasized that even if a decision is found to be inconsistent with the evidence, motu proprio amendments that affect substantial rights are impermissible without a hearing, as they can lead to significant injustices and the deprivation of acquired rights without due process. The Court stated that amendments should be made only after hearing the interested parties to ensure they align with public convenience without unfairly favoring one operator over another. On the order of July 7, 1952, granting a provisional permit: The Court denied the petition concerning the order of July 7, 1952. The Court distinguished this from the previous order, noting that the PSC had received evidence supporting Heras's request for a provisional permit and concluded there was an urgent need for the service. The Court cited previous doctrines establishing that provisional permits can be granted upon a showing of urgent necessity, and that if the petitioner (Halili) could later prove that existing lines adequately served the public, the provisional permit would be automatically canceled. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the PSC's decision to grant the provisional permit under these circumstances, as it was based on evidence presented and a finding of urgency, and the rights of the petitioner were preserved pending a full hearing.
Main Doctrine
The Public Service Commission cannot amend, modify, or revoke a certificate of public convenience without proper notice and hearing, especially when such amendment substantially alters the route and affects the rights of existing operators, as this constitutes grave abuse of discretion and violates due process.