Mercado v. Commissioner Medina
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On March 19, 1964, bus operators applied for a fare increase. Pending resolution, the Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order on December 8, 1965, provisionally hiking the rate and setting a minimum fare. Due to complaints, an amendatory order on January 17, 1966, reduced the minimum fare but allowed application of a "zonal arrangement" in the Greater Manila area. Residents of Quezon City complained that bus operators, citing the "zonal arrangement," were overcharging. Complainant Irineo Mercado filed a complaint on January 27, 1966, against MM and JD bus companies for overcharging 5 centavos per ride. This complaint was docketed as case 66-11-OC. Procedural History: On March 4, 1966, Mercado filed the same complaint with respondent Commissioner Enrique Medina. On March 9, 1966, Medina issued a "show cause" order to MM Bus Lines, Inc. A formal hearing was conducted on March 17, 1966, where Medina dictated an order creating a committee to survey areas and lines and study the zonal system, postponing the hearing on the merits. On April 14, 1966, a petition for certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the December 8, 1965, and January 17, 1966 orders. The PSC indefinitely postponed hearings on case 64-2365 pending resolution of the certiorari petition. On May 10, 1966, recommendations were submitted to Medina, who reserved action and suspended proceedings in case 66-11-OC, believing the Supreme Court's decision would affect the disposition of the overcharging charges. After 45 days of inaction, Mercado filed the present administrative case. The Petition: Mercado filed an administrative complaint against Commissioner Medina, charging him with non-feasance or dereliction of duty, misfeasance, misconduct, conduct unworthy of a public official, and abuse of discretion and partiality.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Commissioner Medina committed non-feasance or dereliction of duty by allegedly delaying the resolution of case 66-11-OC. Whether respondent Commissioner Medina committed misfeasance, misconduct, and conduct unworthy of a public official by allegedly making substantial and prejudicial alterations to his dictated order. Whether respondent Commissioner Medina committed abuse of discretion and partiality.
Ruling
The administrative complaint against Commissioner Enrique Medina is dismissed, and he is absolved from all charges. The Court, however, advises the respondent to proceed with the hearing of Case No. 66-11-OC with reasonable dispatch and arrive at a decision with deliberate speed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of non-feasance and dereliction of duty: The Court found no sufficient evidence to support this charge. Non-feasance implies a willful or fraudulent omission or neglect of official duty. The respondent acted with dispatch by issuing a "show cause" order and conducting a formal hearing shortly after receiving the complaint. The creation of a committee to study the "zonal" and "total distance travelled" systems was justified because the resolution of the overcharging issue escapably involved the question of which system should be followed. The pendency of a certiorari petition before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the fare orders was a supervening event that warranted the respondent's caution in proceeding with the case. However, the Court noted an error in judgment in not proceeding with the hearing of case 66-11-OC despite the certiorari proceedings, as the validity of the orders did not exempt bus companies from liability for overcharging. On the charge of misfeasance, misconduct, and conduct unworthy of a public official: The Court found that the respondent satisfactorily explained the alterations made in the written order compared to the dictated order. The statement regarding "confusion created by the word 'zonal arrangement'" did not constitute a confirmation of overcharging, as it would be superfluous to create a committee to study the areas if overcharging was already definitively established. The statements regarding refunds were not orders but rather expressions of expectation and a record of a promise by counsel, which was later deleted upon objection. The change in committee chairman was explained as a measure to ensure impartiality. The additional duty assigned to the committee to study the "zonal arrangement" and "total distance travelled" systems was justified as the "zonal arrangement" was pleaded by the bus operators in their defense. The evidence did not clearly establish that these modifications were made in bad faith or with intent to favor the bus operators. On the charge of abuse of discretion and partiality: The Court found no evidence of caprice, arbitrariness, or partiality in the respondent's actions. The alterations made to the dictated order were not motivated by improper motives. The accusation of favoring bus operators lacked evidentiary support, and mere suspicion or conjecture cannot be afforded weight and credence in administrative proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Commissioner Medina, finding no sufficient evidence of non-feasance, dereliction of duty, misfeasance, misconduct, or abuse of discretion. However, it advised the Commissioner to proceed with the hearing of the overcharging case with reasonable dispatch.