Generoso Villanueva Transportation Co. v. Moya
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Hector G. Moya filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate a 20-unit taxi service in Bacolod City and from that city to any point in the island of Negros. The application was set for hearing on March 31, 1969. 2. Procedural History: On March 31, 1969, Generoso Villanueva Transportation Co., Inc. (petitioner) filed a "Motion to Dismiss" the application, alleging that Moya was prohibited by his existing franchise from applying for additional units. The motion was filed at the PSC's receiving section and indicated "Copy furnished Atty. Jesus Torrecareon, for Applicant" but lacked a notice of hearing. At the initial hearing, petitioner's counsel entered an appearance for an oppositor. The hearing was postponed upon motion of the oppositors to allow them to file written oppositions. Petitioner's counsel did not inform the Commissioner about the motion to dismiss. Neither petitioner nor the counsel for another oppositor filed any written opposition. Moya later filed an ex parte motion for hearing due to the lack of written opposition. The case was set for hearing on August 28, 1969, without notice to petitioner. On September 3, 1969, the PSC rendered a decision granting Moya's application, referencing petitioner's motion to dismiss but deeming it a "mere scrap of paper" due to non-compliance with procedural rules. 3. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the PSC decision, asserting deprivation of due process for the decision being rendered without a hearing on its motion to dismiss. It also prayed for a trial de novo.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Service Commission's decision, rendered without a hearing on the petitioner's motion to dismiss, constituted a deprivation of due process of law.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Public Service Commission correctly ruled that the petitioner's motion to dismiss was a mere scrap of paper and did not commit a deprivation of due process.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission (PSC) correctly ruled that the petitioner's motion to dismiss was a "mere scrap of paper." This ruling was based on the doctrine established and reiterated in numerous cases, which mandates that a motion must contain both proof of service on the adverse party and a notice of the time and place of hearing for it to be properly considered by the court. The petitioner's motion admittedly failed to provide proof of service, and while it stated "Copy furnished: Atty. Jesus Torrecareon, for Applicant," Moya's counsel denied receipt, and the petitioner failed to prove service. Furthermore, the motion admittedly lacked any notice of the time or place of hearing, which is a critical procedural requirement. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's counsel also failed to bring the existence of this motion to the attention of Commissioner Cadiao during the initial hearing on March 31, 1969, which could have potentially allowed for the defect to be cured. The Court found no "substantive enough" justifying circumstance, similar to those found in cases where procedural non-compliance was excused, that would warrant a deviation from the strict application of the rules in the present recourse. Consequently, the Court found no deprivation of due process as the motion was procedurally infirm and not properly brought before the Commission for its cognizance, justifying the Commission's decision to treat the application as uncontested.
Main Doctrine
A motion to dismiss, to be considered, must comply with the rules of procedure, including proof of service and notice of hearing. Failure to comply renders the motion a mere scrap of paper, and the subsequent proceedings, if uncontested, are valid.