Manila Electric Company v. Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Moises Ampil, an operator of an auto-calesa service with a certificate of public convenience, was charged by Manila Electric Company (Meralco) for charging passenger rates less than authorized. The Public Service Commission (PSC) ordered the suspension of Ampil's certificate of public convenience for six months in Case No. 42170. In other cases (Nos. 42726, 42820, and 42907), Ampil was ordered to pay nominal costs of investigation. Procedural History: Meralco filed a petition for rehearing in Case No. 42820, protesting the imposition of nominal costs. The PSC denied this motion, stating Ampil's certificate was under suspension. Ampil then filed a motion to lift the suspension in Case No. 42170. Meralco opposed this motion. On the same day, the PSC granted Ampil's motion to lift the suspension without hearing the parties or serving notice to Meralco. Meralco was served a copy of this resolution and filed a motion for rehearing, which was set for hearing. Ampil appeared, waived his right to present evidence, and asked to file a memorandum. Subsequently, the PSC denied Meralco's motion for rehearing. The Petition: Meralco filed an original petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, praying for the nullification of the PSC's resolution dated September 13, 1935, for lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction to cancel the suspension of a certificate of public convenience before the lapse of the period of suspension. Whether the PSC acted with grave abuse of discretion in lifting the suspension without a rehearing.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is denied and dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission has the discretionary power to cancel an order of suspension of a certificate of public convenience after a rehearing, when justified by circumstances and public policy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to cancel the suspension: Section 28 of Act No. 3108 grants the Public Service Commission the power to, at any time, order a rehearing to extend, revoke, or modify any order made by it. The order suspending Ampil's certificate of public convenience was an order that could be modified under this provision. The Court clarified that while a final decision on a question cannot be relitigated, the PSC retains the power to alter or modify its orders when public policy and the needs of public service require it, provided a rehearing is conducted. The order of suspension is a disciplinary measure, and the PSC has ample power to cancel it under appropriate circumstances and after due process. On the PSC acting with grave abuse of discretion in lifting the suspension without a rehearing: While it is true that the PSC initially granted Ampil's motion to lift the suspension without a prior rehearing, thereby acting in violation of Section 28 of Act No. 3108, this omission was cured by the subsequent rehearing granted upon Meralco's motion. The rehearing held on September 23, 1935, effectively validated the PSC's action, as it provided an opportunity for the parties to be heard, even though Ampil waived his right to present evidence and opted to file a memorandum. Therefore, the PSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in the final disposition of the matter.
Main Doctrine
The Public Service Commission, after a rehearing, has discretionary power to cancel an order of suspension of a certificate of public convenience when it is justified by the circumstances of the case and public policy so demands.