Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > September 1938 Decisions > G.R. No. 45503B September 20, 1938 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

066 Phil 193:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45503B. September 20, 1938.]

SANTIAGO SAMBRANO, Applicant-Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Oppositor-Appellee.

Sixto Brillantes, for Appellant.

Evaristo Sandoval, for Appellee.

L. D. Lockwood, for Northern Luzon Trans. Co.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICES; UNAUTHORIZED DISMISSAL OF AN APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE HOURS OF TRIP. — The action of the Public Service Commission in provisionally dismissing the application of S. S. that he be permitted to increase his hours of trip, at the stage in which the proceedings were then found, is not authorized either by law, by practice, or by any rule promulgated by it.

2. ID.; ID.; POLICY OF NATIONALIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES DOES NOT AUTHORIZE VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. — The policy of nationalization of public services enunciated by His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, does not and cannot authorize the violation of the rules of procedure established by the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — Had the commission proceeded with the trial of the case until its termination, in accordance with the rules of procedure, it would have complied with the policy of nationalization of public services which it invokes, rendering the decision which the case warrants. The decision of this court reversing the order of dismissal of the Public Service Commission will not, therefore, impede or defeat the policy of nationalization to be adopted by the government because it is in the power of the Public Service Commission to comply with that policy which it can do by following the procedure marked out by the Code of Civil Procedure.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is a motion filed by the Public Service Commission praying for the reconsideration of the decision of this court of July 27, 1938, rendered in this case, upon the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the order of February 25, 1937, sought to be reviewed, was entered by the commission in the legitimate exercise of the powers conferred upon it by law.

"2. That the aforesaid order was issued by the commission in accordance with the policy of nationalization of public services enunciated by His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, under the provisions of the Constitution.

"3. That the decision of this Supreme Court reversing the aforesaid order is of such a scope that it will impede, if not defeat, the policy of nationalization of public services to be adopted by the government.

"4. That the aforesaid order does not prejudice the applicant, but on the contrary protects his interest and, at the same time, promotes national and not local or regional public interest.

"5. That the aforesaid order is only temporary and interlocutory and not subject to review."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Public Service Commission contends that under Commonwealth Act No. 146 it has ample powers to issue the order sought to be reviewed dismissing case No. 41712 wherein Santiago Sambrano is applicant and Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc. is oppositor after the said applicant and the oppositor had presented their evidence in support of the application and the opposition respectively.

In support of its theory, the Public Service Commission cites sections 13, 11, 17 and 29 of the aforesaid Commonwealth Act No. 146 providing as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 13. . . . the Commission shall have general supervision and regulation of, jurisdiction and control over, all public services, and also over their property, property rights, equipment, facilities, and franchises of ar as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, and in the exercise of its authority it shall have the necessary powers. . . .

"SEC. 11. The Commission shall have the power to make needful rules for its government and other proceedings not inconsistent with this Act. . . .

"SEC. 17. The Commission shall have power, without previous hearing, . . . :chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"(j) To require any public service to comply with the laws of the Philippines and with any provincial resolution or municipal ordinance relating thereto and to conform to the duties imposed upon it thereby or by the provisions of its own charter, whether obtained under any general or special law of the Philippines.

"SEC. 29. All hearing and investigations before the Commission shall be governed by rules adopted by the Commission, and in the conduct thereof the Commission shall not be bound by the technical rules of legal evidence . . .."

Upon a careful examination of the sections of Commonwealth Act No. 146 cited by the movant in support of the first ground of its motion for reconsideration, we find nothing therein expressly or impliedly authorizing the Public Service Commission to dismiss motu proprio an application for permission to increase the hours of trip after the application had adduced his evidence in support of his application and while the oppositor is presenting evidence in support of its opposition. It is true that section 29, cited by the movant, provides that the hearings and investigations before the commission shall be governed by the rules which it may promulgate and that in its proceedings it shall not be subject to the technical rules of evidence; but we have not been referred to any rule of the Public Service Commission authorizing it to dismiss an application for permission to increase the hours of trip at the stage of the proceedings in which the case before us was found when it was dismissed. In the absence of rules promulgated by the Public Service Commission regulating the procedure which should be followed in the hearing of applications before it, there have been followed up to the present the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulating the hearing of judicial cases. Section 127 of the aforesaid procedural Code speaks of only one case where a court may dismiss an action motu proprio without the petition of any party, namely, when the plaintiff fails to prosecute his case for an unjustified period of time, permitting, however, the plaintiff to file his complaint anew based upon the same grounds.

In the case before us, the action of the Public Service Commission in provisionally dismissing the application of Santiago Sambrano that he be permitted to increase his hours of trip, at the stage in which the proceedings were then found, is not authorized, as we have said, either by law, by practice, or by any rule promulgated by it.

The policy of nationalization of public services enunciated by His Excellency, the President of the Philippines, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, does not and cannot authorize the violation of the rules of procedure established by the Code of Civil Procedure. Had the commission proceeded with the trial of the case until its termination, in accordance with the rules of procedure, it would have complied with the policy of nationalization of public services which it invokes, rendering the decision which the case warrants. The decision of this court reversing the order of dismissal of the Public Service Commission will not, therefore, impede or defeat the policy of nationalization to be adopted by the government because it is in the power of the Public Service Commission to comply with that policy which it can do by following the procedure marked out by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Wherefore, finding no merit in the motion for reconsideration, the same is denied. So ordered.

Avancena, C.J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1938 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45905 September 6, 1938 - ENRIQUE MEDINA v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    066 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 46051 September 9, 1938 - JARO EXPRESS CO., INC. v. CARLOS LOPEZ

    066 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 46001 September 12, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    066 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 46191 September 12, 1938 - JOAQUIN SURTIDA, ET AL. v. JUAN G. LESACA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 46196 September 12, 1938 - ANTONIO S. SAN AGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 46206 September 12, 1938 - HACIENDA NAVARRA, INC. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 43547 September 13, 1938 - JOSEFA MARCELO v. FELICIANO ALCANTARA

    066 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 46135 September 19, 1938 - ALFREDO COPIACO, ET AL. v. LUZON BROKERAGE CO., INC.

    066 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 45503B September 20, 1938 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    066 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 42752 September 21, 1938 - CATALINO SEVILLA, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    066 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 43933 September 22, 1938 - CHENG SIONG LAM & CO. v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    066 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 44100 September 22, 1938 - WM. H. ANDERSON v. JUAN POSADAS

    066 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 44388 September 22, 1938 - ENGRACIO DE ASIS v. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO.

    066 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45629 September 22, 1938 - ATILANO G. MERCADO v. ALFONSO SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 43861 September 26, 1938 - THE MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. TOMAS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 44471 September 26, 1938 - H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY v. BUNTAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 44347 September 27, 1938 - FELIX PAULINO v. ALEJANDRO SEVA

    066 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 45578 September 27, 1938 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. EMILIANA SANTOS

    066 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45859 September 28, 1938 - GOLD CREEK MINING CORPORATION v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 44058 September 30, 1938 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 44612 September 30, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. C. N. HODGES

    066 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 45848 September 30, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MENZI & CO., INC.

    066 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 45904 September 30, 1938 - PABLO G. UTULO v. LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA

    066 Phil 302