Sambrano v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The respondent Northern Luzon Transportation Company filed 16 cases against petitioner Santiago Sambrano for alleged violations of the conditions of his certificates of public convenience, specifically irregularities in service, charging less than the fixed fare, and failure to issue tickets. The Public Service Commission found the infringements established and, instead of suspending or cancelling the certificates, charged Sambrano P400 for the expenses of the investigations (P25 per case). Procedural History: Sambrano did not appeal the decisions, which became final and executory. Despite demands, he failed to pay the P400. Consequently, the respondent commissioner issued an order requiring Sambrano to appear and show cause why his operations should not be suspended or his certificates cancelled for non-payment of investigation expenses. Sambrano's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Sambrano filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, praying for the declaration of nullity and setting aside of the August 19, 1935 order.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for certiorari is premature. Whether the Public Service Commission has the power to charge the expenses of an investigation against an operator found guilty of violating the conditions of his certificate of public convenience. Whether the Public Service Commission can suspend or revoke a certificate of public convenience solely for the failure of the guilty operator to pay the expenses of an investigation charged against him.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The order of August 19, 1935, is upheld.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the petition for certiorari is premature: The Court held that the petition was premature because the commission had not yet taken any action prejudicial to the petitioner. The commission had merely required Sambrano to appear and show cause why his operation should not be suspended or his certificates cancelled for refusing to pay the investigation expenses. If the commission found his explanation satisfactory, no action would be taken against him, thus providing no cause for complaint. The order to show cause is a preliminary step, not a final determination of rights. On whether the Public Service Commission has the power to charge the expenses of an investigation against an operator found guilty of violating the conditions of his certificate of public convenience: The Court affirmed that under section 24(h) of Act No. 3108, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3316, the commission possesses express power to charge the expenses of an investigation against an operator found guilty of violating the conditions of his certificate, or a law or ordinance. This power is analogous to its authority to suspend or revoke a certificate for the same cause. The Court cited several previous decisions supporting this power. On whether the Public Service Commission can suspend or revoke a certificate of public convenience solely for the failure of the guilty operator to pay the expenses of an investigation charged against him: The Court refrained from passing upon this specific question, deeming it unnecessary for the resolution of the present case. The petition was denied on the ground of prematurity. The Court noted that the primary issue was the premature filing of the certiorari petition, not the ultimate consequence of non-payment of investigation expenses.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is premature if the Public Service Commission has not yet taken any action prejudicial to the petitioner, and has merely required the petitioner to appear and show cause why his operation should not be suspended or his certificates cancelled.