Del Pilar Transit, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: De Dios Transportation Co., Inc. (De Dios) was granted a certificate of public convenience to operate transportation services on specific routes. In 1952, De Dios petitioned the Public Service Commission (PSC) to amend its certificate to allow re-routing of its lines and to extend its operating hours, citing public necessity. This petition remained unresolved for many years. 2. Procedural History: De Dios filed a motion in 1967 to expedite the resolution of its 1952 petition. A hearing was held, with no oppositors appearing despite proper notice. On December 6, 1967, the PSC granted De Dios's petition to re-route its lines and amend its certificate, finding that no other operator served the proposed routes and that the changes would promote public interest and convenience. De Dios commenced operations on the new routes. Subsequently, the lines were sold to Manila De Dios Transportation Co., Inc. (Manila De Dios), with the PSC's approval. 3. The Petition: Del Pilar Transit, Inc. (Del Pilar), a franchise holder operating on different routes, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, challenging the PSC's December 6, 1967 order. Del Pilar alleged that the PSC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by granting the re-routing petition without notice to Del Pilar, and sought to enjoin respondents from operating on the approved routes. The petition was later amended to include Manila De Dios as a respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Service Commission acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in granting the petition for re-routing without notice to petitioner Del Pilar Transit, Inc. Whether petitioner Del Pilar Transit, Inc. is guilty of laches for failing to act sooner. Whether the re-routing of the lines of De Dios Transportation Co. serves public interest and convenience.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The preliminary injunction is dissolved. Costs against the petitioner. The petitioner is not precluded from seeking appropriate relief from the Public Service Commission.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of lack of notice and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that Del Pilar Transit, Inc. failed to exhaust administrative remedies. While it is true that changes in circumstances and the interests of Del Pilar as an operator might have occurred between the filing of the petition and its resolution, Del Pilar never brought these circumstances to the attention of the Public Service Commission. The established rule requires that the attention of the lower court or agency must first be called to the alleged error before resorting to a certiorari proceeding. Petitioner's omission on this point is fatal to the present action. The Court also noted that the lines of the respondents, as re-routed, would not substantially overlap with any portion of Del Pilar's other lines, and the termini of the lines served different areas, with respondents serving suburban areas not reached by petitioner. The PSC found that respondents were the sole operators serving these suburban areas directly. On the issue of public interest and convenience: The Court affirmed the PSC's finding that the re-routing was demanded by public interest and convenience. Evidence showed that the original certificate was pre-World War II and conditions had materially changed, including business conditions, traffic regulations, and the volume of passenger traffic. The shift in business sectors, the change in the bulk of passengers from vendors to commuters, and the obsolescence of pre-war transport systems like MERALCO's trolley buses necessitated adjustments. The PSC found that the original routes and restricted hours were impractical and inadequate, and the re-routing would better serve the public. On the issue of laches: The respondents contended that Del Pilar was guilty of laches for allowing them to operate on the re-routed lines for over nine months without lodging a complaint. While the Court did not explicitly rule on laches as a primary ground for dismissal, the prolonged period of operation without objection, coupled with the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, contributed to the dismissal of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari and prohibition against an order of the Public Service Commission granting a re-routing of public utility lines will be dismissed if the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by first calling the attention of the Commission to alleged errors or changed circumstances, and if the re-routing is found to be in furtherance of public interest and convenience, and the petitioner's lines do not substantially overlap with the re-routed lines.