November 1932 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > November 1932 Decisions >
G.R. No. 38553 November 23, 1932 - TOLEDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. EULALIO POSAS
057 Phil 592:
057 Phil 592:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 38553. November 23, 1932.]
TOLEDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., oppositor-appellant, v. EULALIO POSAS, Petitioner-Appellee.
E. P. Virata for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; SUSPENSION OF ORDER. — The record in this case being insufficient to enable the court to determine if the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that would entitle him to the order of suspension which is prayed for, the suspension of the order of the Public Service Commission is denied.
2. ID.; PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER; PARTY RESPONDENT. — It is not necessary to make the Public Service Commission a respondent in a petition for review under section 35 of Act No. 3108, but the Attorney-General has the right to intervene in appropriate cases. (Manila Railroad Co. v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., 48 Phil., 266, 268.)
3. ID.; ID.; ID. — In cases of conflicting interests it is incumbent upon a petitioner for review to make the party oppositor before the Public Service Commission a respondent in the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
2. ID.; PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER; PARTY RESPONDENT. — It is not necessary to make the Public Service Commission a respondent in a petition for review under section 35 of Act No. 3108, but the Attorney-General has the right to intervene in appropriate cases. (Manila Railroad Co. v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., 48 Phil., 266, 268.)
3. ID.; ID.; ID. — In cases of conflicting interests it is incumbent upon a petitioner for review to make the party oppositor before the Public Service Commission a respondent in the proceedings in the Supreme Court.
D E C I S I O N
BUTTE, J.:
This is a petition for review under section 35 of Act No. 3108 of an order of the Public Service Commission. No copy of the order complained of is attached. The petition itself is not verified. The petition states that the order complained of was promulgated on October 31, 1932, and a copy thereof received by the petitioner on November 1, 1932. No copy of the motion for reconsideration nor the decision thereon is attached to the petition. The assignments of error are in general terms and nothing is contained within or attached to the petition which will enable us to determine if the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that would entitle it to the order of suspension which is prayed for. Hence, the suspension must be denied.
The petition names Eulalio Posas as appellee and recites that "the appellee is a deceased persons." We have held that it is not necessary to make the Public Service Commission respondent in a petition for review under section 35 of Act No. 3108 but that the Attorney-General, as the law officer of the commission, has the right to intervene in appropriate cases. (Manila Railroad Company v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., 48 Phil., 266, 268.) When, however, a proceeding before the commission was initiated by the petition of one party and opposed by a formal answer or other pleading of a party and opposed by a formal answer or other pleading of a party having an adverse interest in the subject matter so that the commission is confronted with a case or controversy calling for a decision, directly or incidentally, upon conflicting interests, it is incumbent upon a petitioner for review in this court to make the party oppositor before the commission a respondent in the review proceedings in this court. This rule is not only manifestly just but also helpful to the court in obtaining an orderly presentation of both sides of the case or controversy; and it has been generally observed in actual practice.
In the present case the alleged respondent is a deceased person. For lack of a proper party respondent, the petition for review is dismissed at the cost of the petition, without prejudice, however, to the filing of another petition naming a proper party respondent within the time limited under section 35 of Act No. 3108. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Imperial, JJ., concur.
The petition names Eulalio Posas as appellee and recites that "the appellee is a deceased persons." We have held that it is not necessary to make the Public Service Commission respondent in a petition for review under section 35 of Act No. 3108 but that the Attorney-General, as the law officer of the commission, has the right to intervene in appropriate cases. (Manila Railroad Company v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., 48 Phil., 266, 268.) When, however, a proceeding before the commission was initiated by the petition of one party and opposed by a formal answer or other pleading of a party and opposed by a formal answer or other pleading of a party having an adverse interest in the subject matter so that the commission is confronted with a case or controversy calling for a decision, directly or incidentally, upon conflicting interests, it is incumbent upon a petitioner for review in this court to make the party oppositor before the commission a respondent in the review proceedings in this court. This rule is not only manifestly just but also helpful to the court in obtaining an orderly presentation of both sides of the case or controversy; and it has been generally observed in actual practice.
In the present case the alleged respondent is a deceased person. For lack of a proper party respondent, the petition for review is dismissed at the cost of the petition, without prejudice, however, to the filing of another petition naming a proper party respondent within the time limited under section 35 of Act No. 3108. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Imperial, JJ., concur.
