Calderon v. Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Milo was the grantee of a municipal franchise and certificate of public convenience for electric service in Pulilan, Bulacan. On February 15, 1967, Milo sold this franchise and certificate to petitioner Calderon, citing his inability to devote sufficient time to the operation to the prejudice of the public, and Calderon's willingness and financial capacity to operate it for the public's benefit. 2. Procedural History: The parties filed a joint petition with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for approval of the sale. After several postponements, Milo submitted an affidavit of no objection. Associate Commissioner Panganiban issued a provisional order of approval and delegated the reception of evidence to Engr. Pedro Talavera, chief of the industrial division. Talavera conducted inspections and received evidence, leading to a decision by Commissioner Panganiban on December 19, 1967, approving the sale. Milo filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging incomplete collateral agreements and financial incapacity of Calderon. Subsequently, Milo filed a supplemental motion assailing the validity of the proceedings before Engr. Talavera, arguing that as a non-lawyer, Talavera could not legally receive evidence. The PSC, by a vote of four to one, granted the reconsideration, set aside the December 19, 1967 decision, and ordered a new hearing. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Calderon filed an original action for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that appeal was not a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy due to significant prejudice. Alternatively, he requested the petition be treated as a review under Rule 44. The core issue is whether Milo is estopped from assailing the delegation of evidence reception to Engr. Talavera, a non-lawyer, after consenting to it and the subsequent proceedings. Calderon contends that Milo's objection was belated and that any defect in delegation was waived by their prior consent and participation. Furthermore, Calderon notes that he has since been granted a congressional franchise for the same service.
Issue(s)
May a joint applicant in an uncontested joint petition before the Public Service Commission (PSC) for approval of the transfer and sale of a certificate of public convenience, who consented to the delegation of the reception of evidence to a non-lawyer division chief, subsequently assail the resulting decision on the ground that the said delegate was not a lawyer? Is the defect in the delegation of the reception of evidence to a non-lawyer a procedural or jurisdictional defect, and is it waived by failure to interpose a timely objection thereto?
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. The order of the respondent commission dated June 24, 1968, is set aside, and the writ of preliminary injunction is made permanent. The sale and transfer of the municipal franchise and certificate of public convenience are approved in favor of petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that private respondent Cecilio V. Milo was clearly estopped from assailing the delegation of the reception of evidence to Engr. Talavera and questioning the validity of the decision. Milo had not presented any timely objection to such delegation; in fact, he consented to it through counsel, submitting an affidavit of no objection to the approval of the sale. His objection to Engr. Talavera's qualification was merely an "after-thought" raised in a supplemental motion for reconsideration. The Court emphasized that Milo could not question the validity of the sale, which he himself submitted for approval, before the Commission on alleged non-compliance with "collateral" or "subsequent" agreements. Furthermore, the Court noted that if Milo's current posture were consistent, he would also have to concede the nullity of his original certificate of public convenience, as evidence for that grant was also received by Engr. Talavera, rendering the entire issue moot. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that whatever defect there may have been in delegating the reception of evidence to Engr. Talavera, a non-lawyer but the experienced chief of the industrial division, was a procedural defect deemed waived by the parties' consent to his designation and failure to interpose a timely objection. Citing Enriquez & Co. vs. Ortega and Rizal Light & Ice Co. vs. Municipality of Morong, the Court reiterated that objections to such delegations must be raised at the beginning of the hearing. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of the procedural defect. The Court distinguished the present case from Eastern Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, where a timely objection was made. Moreover, the Court applied the principle enunciated in Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, stating that "after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court." Finally, the Court noted that petitioner Calderon, Jr.'s right to operate the electric service was independently secured by a twenty-five-year congressional franchise under Republic Act No. 6013, enacted on August 4, 1969, further bolstering the decision.
Main Doctrine
A party who consents to the delegation of the reception of evidence to a non-lawyer official and participates in the proceedings without timely objection is estopped from assailing the validity of the decision rendered based on such evidence on the ground that the delegate was not legally authorized to receive evidence.