Mondia v. Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners sought to (1) compel the Public Service Commission (PSC) to hear a complaint against operator Rustico M. Matus; (2) set aside PSC decisions approving the transfer of Matus's certificate of public convenience to Negros Travelways Corporation and converting the service to regular status; and (3) prevent the PSC from acting on Negros Travelways Corporation's application for extension of service lines into territories operated by petitioners. Procedural History: The PSC approved the sale of Matus's certificate to Negros Travelways Corporation despite a pending complaint against Matus for substituting a cylinder set and erasing its number. The PSC later denied a motion for reconsideration, deeming the complaint unfounded after verifying the change was made on a different truck. The PSC also approved the conversion of the irregular service to a regular one. Petitioners contended that these approvals were irregular and constituted grave abuse of discretion, particularly as they were allegedly not notified and given an opportunity to be heard. The Petition: Petitioners filed three consolidated petitions for certiorari, assailing the PSC's decisions and actions, and praying for the setting aside of certain orders and the abstention of the PSC from further action.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial is a prerequisite to filing a petition for certiorari from a decision of the Public Service Commission. Whether the attorneys for the other petitioners could object to the dismissal of the cases at the instance of Florencia A. de Mondia and Consolacion Decimo. Whether the Public Service Commission gravely abused its discretion in approving the sale of Rustico M. Matus's certificate of public convenience to Negros Travelways Corporation pending resolution of a complaint against Matus. Whether the Public Service Commission gravely abused its discretion in approving the sale and converting the service to regular status without proper notice and hearing to the petitioners. Whether the Public Service Commission abused its discretion in converting the irregular service to a regular one without requiring proof of the nationality of the stockholders of Negros Travelways Corporation. Whether the Public Service Commission abused its discretion in ordering the reference of Negros Travelways Corporation's application for extension of service lines to a justice of the peace.
Ruling
The petitions for certiorari are denied. The cases are dismissed with respect to petitioners Florencia A. de Mondia and Consolacion Decimo. The decisions of the Public Service Commission are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of filing a motion for reconsideration or new trial: The Court held that the filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial is no longer a necessary formality or a condition precedent to an appeal from an order, resolution, or decision of the Public Service Commission by means of a petition for certiorari. This is due to the amendment introduced by Commonwealth Act No. 146, which deliberately suppressed the phrase "after the rehearing" found in the previous Act No. 3108. The Court reasoned that the previous doctrine requiring such a motion was based on the specific wording of the old law, which is no longer applicable. Therefore, appeals by certiorari can be directly filed without this preliminary step. On the objection to dismissal by other petitioners' attorneys: The Court ruled that the attorneys for the other petitioners could not justifiably object to the dismissal of the cases at the instance of Florencia A. de Mondia and Consolacion Decimo. The right to ask for the dismissal of an action or appeal belongs exclusively to the moving party. The Court emphasized that the movants were entitled to dispense with the services of their attorneys at any time and that their withdrawal from the cases, especially when alleging no further interest, could not be prevented by their former counsel. On the approval of the sale pending complaint: The Court found no merit in the contention that the PSC abused its discretion in approving the sale of Matus's certificate pending the complaint against him. The Court reasoned that the sale was justified and, more importantly, the complaint against Matus was subsequently found to be without merit. The PSC's decision that the change of the cylinder set was effected in a different truck than the one covered by the certificate effectively dismissed and exonerated Matus. The fact that this decision came after the approval of the sale did not render the sale approval irregular or illegal. On notice and hearing for sale approval and service conversion: The Court held that the PSC strictly complied with the legal requirements for notice and hearing. The PSC issued orders for hearings, which were published in newspapers as required by its rules and Commonwealth Act No. 146. The Court clarified that petitioners, as irregular operators, were not entitled to personal or registered mail notice, and notice by publication was sufficient and valid. Therefore, the assailed decisions were promulgated conformably to law and after observance of legal requirements regarding notices and hearings, negating any claim of abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. On proof of nationality of stockholders: The Court stated that there is no law requiring a partnership, corporation, or association applying for a certificate of public convenience to allege in its petition that sixty percent of its stock or capital belongs to citizens of the Philippines or the United States. These facts are not jurisdictional and need not be alleged in the petition, but rather constitute a ground for opposition. The Court presumed that the applicant entity complied with such provisions in the absence of proof to the contrary, and noted that the petitioners did not even insinuate non-compliance. The PSC retains the power to revoke the certificate if it is later discovered that the corporation does not meet the requirements. On the reference to a justice of the peace: The Court found no merit in the contention that the PSC abused its discretion in commissioning a justice of the peace to hold hearings for the reception of evidence regarding the extension of service lines. The Court cited Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, which grants the PSC general powers, including the authority to order references. The Court also noted that the pendency of other appeals did not bar the PSC from proceeding with this petition, as the issues were different and the decisions in the appeals would not affect the petition for extension.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion for reconsideration or new trial is no longer a necessary formality or a condition precedent to an appeal from an order, resolution, or decision of the Public Service Commission by means of a petition for certiorari, following the amendment of the Public Service Act.