Danan v. Commissioners of Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, spouses Dominador Danan and Adoracion Fernandez, were holders of a certificate of public convenience for the operation of a 4-ton ice plant in Orion, Bataan, acquired in 1958. In an order dated February 2, 1960, the Public Service Commission (PSC) cancelled and revoked this certificate due to abandonment of service, citing the plant's non-operation since October 1956. Procedural History: Two days after the revocation, on February 4, 1960, the PSC granted respondent Cortisan & Company, Inc. a certificate of public convenience to operate a 10-ton ice plant in the same municipality. Petitioners failed to appear at this hearing due to an alleged accident. Their subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on February 12, 1960. Petitioners then filed a joint motion for reconsideration of the February 2, 1960 order and for the reopening of the case involving Cortisan & Company, Inc. This motion was heard on March 29, 1960, and subsequently denied in an order dated April 5, 1960, which petitioners received on July 21, 1960. The Petition: The instant Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme Court on August 22, 1960, which was 32 days after petitioners received the order denying their joint motion for reconsideration and reopening.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Public Service Commission committed a procedural infirmity in revoking the certificate of public convenience without prior notice and hearing.
Ruling
The petition for review is denied for having been filed beyond the reglementary period. The orders complained of have thereby become final.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the reglementary period: The Court held that the petition for review was filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed by law. Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 provides that a petition for review must be filed within thirty days from notification of the order, or within fifteen days after notice of the order denying reconsideration. Similarly, Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court mandates filing within thirty days from notice of an order or decision. In this case, the petitioners received the order denying their motion for reconsideration on July 21, 1960, and filed their petition for review on August 22, 1960, which is thirty-two days later. Therefore, the petition was filed out of time. On the issue of procedural infirmity: While the Court acknowledged that the PSC's ex-parte revocation of the certificate without prior notice and opportunity to be heard violated due process, this procedural defect did not cure the untimeliness of the petition for review. The Court expressed concern over the PSC's practice, stating it violates the due process clause of the Constitution and statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that the PSC, as an agency of the government, must uphold the constitutional rights of parties litigant. Nevertheless, the procedural defect, however serious, could not revive a right that had already lapsed due to the failure to file the petition within the prescribed period. The orders of the PSC had become final, irrevocable, and executory.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review filed beyond the reglementary period, even if the challenged order may have been issued with procedural infirmities, must be dismissed as the order has become final and executory.