Boiser v. Tagbilaran Telephone System
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a telephone system in Tagbilaran, Bohol. In one case, the Tagbilaran Telephone System Company, Inc. was granted such a certificate, overruling the objection of Erdulfo C. Boiser. In the other case, Erdulfo Boiser's own petition for a similar certificate was dismissed due to failure to submit evidence and perceived financial incapacity. 2. Procedural History: In G.R. No. L-27690, a Commissioner granted Tagbilaran Telephone System Co., Inc. a certificate of public convenience, which was affirmed by the Commission en banc despite Boiser's objection and subsequent motion for reconsideration. In G.R. No. L-28190, Boiser's petition for a certificate was dismissed by the Commission, and his subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. 3. The Petition: Erdulfo C. Boiser filed petitions for review of these two decisions. The primary issue raised by the respondent Tagbilaran Telephone System Co., Inc. is whether Boiser's petitions were filed within the prescribed period. The respondent argues that the 15-day period for appeal after denial of a motion for reconsideration, as stipulated in Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, should apply, rather than the 30-day period generally allowed for appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitions for review were filed within the reglementary period required by the Public Service Commission Act and the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The petitions are dismissed for having been filed out of time.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petitions were filed out of time because they were submitted 30 days after notice of denial, whereas the law prescribes only 15 days. The Court applied Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (Public Service Commission Act), which specifically mandates that if a petition for reconsideration is denied, the petition for review must be filed within fifteen (15) days after notice of the denial. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the 30-day period under Section 1, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court should apply, emphasizing that the specific period in CA No. 146 governs for denied motions. Citing Manila Electric Company vs. Public Service Commission (18 SCRA 651), the Court clarified that the 15-day period applies strictly when the motion for reconsideration has been denied, as no new decision is created in such a scenario. A 30-day period only becomes available if the motion is granted, because the resulting decision is considered a 'new' one in contemplation of law. Consequently, the orders sought to be reviewed had already become final and unappealable by the time Boiser filed his petitions.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review of an order of the Public Service Commission denying a motion for reconsideration must be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the denial, as provided by Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, and not thirty (30) days under the Rules of Court.