Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > June 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24219 June 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24219. June 13, 1968.]

PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, and FILIPINAS ORIENT AIRWAYS, INC., Respondents.

Crispin D. Baizas, Edgardo Diaz de Rivera and Cenon S. Cervantes, Jr. for Petitioner.

Solicitor General for respondent Civil Aeronautics Board.

Honorio Poblador and Ramon A. Pedrosa for respondent Filipinas Orient Airways, Inc.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC UTILITIES; TRANSPORTATION; CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB); POWER TO ISSUE TEMPORARY OPERATING PERMIT. — Section 10-C (1) of Republic Act No. 776 explicitly authorizes the CAB to issue a temporary operating permit and nothing in the law negates the power to issue said permit before the completion of the applicant’s evidence and that of the oppositor on the main petition. The CAB’s authority to grant a temporary permit upon its own initiative strongly suggests the power to exercise said authority even before the presentation of evidence has begun.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; POLICY OF PUBLIC SERVICE LAW OBSERVED. — There is no cogent reason to depart, in connection with the commercial air transport service, from the policy of public service law which sanctions the issuance of temporary or provisional permits or certificates of public convenience and necessity before the submission of the case for decision on the merits. The overriding considerations in both cases are the same, namely, that the service be required by public convenience and necessity, and that the applicant is fit, willing and able to render such service properly, conformably with law, rules and regulations.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT ENTITLED TO RESPECT; EXCEPTION. — The legal presumption that official duty has been duly performed is particularly strong as regards administrative agencies like the CAB with powers said to be quasi-judicial in nature and related to the enforcement of laws affecting fields of activity the proper regulation of which requires technical or special training. Courts of justice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative agencies unless there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial. This is but a recognition of the necessity of permitting the executive department to adjust law enforcement to changing conditions, without being unduly hampered by the rigidity and delays often attending ordinary court proceedings or the enactment of new or amendatory legislations.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; EX PARTE INTERLOCUTORY ORDER CONSISTENT WITH DUE PROCESS; CASE DISTINGUISHED FROM ANG TIBAY VS. C.I.R. (60 PHIL., 635). — The case of Ang Tibay v. C.I.R. cited by petitioner is not in point as it refers to the conditions essential to a valid decision on the merits from the viewpoint of due process; while the instant case is concerned with an interlocutory order prior to the rendition of said decision. In fact interlocutory orders may sometimes be issued ex parte, particularly in administrative proceedings, without previous notice and hearing consistently with due process.

5. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENTS; CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION REQUIRING COURTS OF RECORD TO STATE CLEARLY THE FACTS AND LAW ON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED, NOT APPLICABLE TO INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS. — The constitutional provision that no decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based applies not to interlocutory orders but to the determination of the case on the merits.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


Original petition for certiorari, to set aside and annul a resolution of the Civil Aeronautics Board — hereinafter referred to as CAB — granting respondent Filipinas Orient Airways, Inc. — hereinafter referred to as Fairways — "provisional authority to operate scheduled and non-scheduled domestic air services with the use of DC-3 aircrafts", subject to specified conditions.

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 4147, granting thereto "a franchise to establish, operate and maintain transport services for the carriage of passengers, mail, industrial flights and cargo by air in and between any and all points and places throughout the Philippines and other countries", on September 16, 1964, Fairways filed with CAB the corresponding application for a "certificate of public convenience and necessity", which was docketed as economic proceedings (EP) No. 625, and was objected to by herein petitioner, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., hereinafter referred to as PAL. Subsequently, a CAB hearing officer began to receive evidence on said application. After several hearings before said officer, or on December 14, 1964, Fairways filed an "urgent petition for provisional authority to operate" under a detailed "program of implementation" attached to said petition, and for the approval of its bond therefor, as well as the provisional approval of its "tariff regulations and the conditions of carriage to be printed at the back of the passenger tickets." Despite PAL’s opposition thereto, in a resolution issued on January 5, 1965, CAB granted said urgent petition of Fairways. The pertinent part of said resolution provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Filipinas Orient Airways, Inc., (FAIRWAYS) having presented to the Board evidence showing prima facie its fitness, willingness and ability to operate the services applied for and the public need for more air transportation service, and to encourage and develop commercial air transportation, RESOLVED, to grant, as the Board hereby grants, the said Filipinas Orient Airways, Inc., provisional authority to operate scheduled and non-scheduled domestic air services with the use of DC-3 aircraft, subject to the following conditions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The term of the provisional authority herein granted shall be until such time as the main application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity is finally decided or for such period as the Board may at any time determine;

x       x       x"

A reconsideration of this resolution having been denied, PAL filed the present civil action alleging that, in issuing said resolution, CAB had acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) CAB is not empowered to grant any provisional authority to operate, prior to the submission for decision of the main application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity;

(2) CAB had no evidence before it that could have justified the granting of the provisional authority complained of;

(3) PAL was denied due process when CAB granted said authority before the presentation of its evidence on Fairways’ main application; and

(4) In granting said provisional authority, the CAB had prejudged the merits of said application.

The first ground is devoid of merit. Section 10-C(1) of Republic Act No. 776, reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(C) The Board shall have the following specific powers and duties:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) In accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this Act, to issue, deny, amend, revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in whole or in part, upon petitioner complaint, or upon its own initiative, any temporary operating permit or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Provided, however, That in the case of foreign air carriers, the permit shall be issued with the approval of the President of the Republic of the Philippines . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

explicitly authorizes CAB to issue a "temporary operating permit," and nothing contained, either in said section, or in Chapter IV of Republic Act No. 776, negates the power to issue said "permit", before the completion of the applicant’s evidence and that of the oppositor thereto on the main petition. Indeed, the CAB’s authority to grant a temporary permit "upon its own initiative," strongly suggests the power to exercise said authority, even before the presentation of said evidence has begun.

Moreover, we perceive no cogent reason to depart, in connection with the commercial air transport service, from the policy of our public service law, which sanctions the issuance of temporary or provisional permits or certificates of public convenience and necessity, before the submission of a case for decision on the merits. 1 The overriding considerations in both instances are the same, namely, that the service be required by public convenience and necessity, and, that the applicant is fit, as well as willing and able to render such service properly, in conformity with law and the pertinent rules, regulations and requirements. 2

As regards PAL’s second contention, we have no more than PAL’s assertion and conclusion regarding the absence of substantial evidence in support of the finding, in the order complained of, to the effect that Fairways’ evidence had established" prima facie" its fitness, willingness and ability to operate the services applied for and the public need for more transportation service . . ." Apart from PAL’s assertion being contradicted by the tenor of said order, there is the legal presumption that official duty has been duly performed.

Such presumption is particularly strong as regards administrative agencies, like the CAB, vested with powers said to be quasi-judicial in nature, in connection with the enforcement of laws affecting particular fields of activity, the proper regulation and/or promotion of which requires a technical or special training, aside from a good knowledge and grasp of the overall conditions, relevant to said field, obtaining in the nation. 3 The consequent policy and practice underlying our Administrative Law is that courts of justice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative agencies, unless there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial. 4 This, in turn, is but a recognition of the necessity of permitting the executive department to adjust law enforcement to changing conditions, without being unduly hampered by the rigidity and the delays often attending ordinary court proceedings or the enactment of new or amendatory legislations. In the case at bar, petitioner has not satisfactorily shown that the aforementioned findings of the CAB are lacking in the necessary evidentiary support.

Needless to say, the case of Ang Tibay v. C.I.R. 5 on which petitioner relies, is not in point. Said case refers to the conditions essential to a valid decision on the merits, from the viewpoint of due process, whereas, in the case at bar, we are concerned with an interlocutory order prior to the rendition of said decision. In fact, interlocutory orders may sometimes be issued ex parte, particularly, in administrative proceedings, without previous notice and hearing, consistently with due process. 6 Again, the constitutional provision to the effect that "no decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based", 7 applies, not to such interlocutory orders, but to the determination of the case on the merits. 8

Lastly, the provisional nature of the permit granted to Fairways refutes the assertion that it prejudges the merits of Fairways’ application and PAL’s opposition thereto. As stated in the questioned order, CAB’s findings therein made reflect its view merely on the prima facie effect of the evidence so far introduced and do not connote a pronouncement or an advanced expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

WHEREFORE, the petition herein should be, as it is hereby dismissed, and the writ prayed for denied, with costs against petitioner, Philippine Air Lines, Inc. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Javellana v. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., 66 Phil. 893; Ablaza v. Transportation Co., 88 Phil. 412.

2. Section 21, Republic Act No. 776; Act No. 3108, Section (1); Batangas Transportation v. Orlanes, 55 Phil. 659; Manila Electric v. Pasay Transportation, 57 Phil. 825.

3. Pangasinan Transportation v. Public Utility Commission, 70 Phil. 221.

4. Heacock v. National Labor Union, 95 Phil. 553.

5. 60 Phil. 635.

6. Cornejo v. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188.

7. Article VIII, Section 12, Constitution of the Philippines.

8. Soncuya v. National Loan & Investment Board, 69 Phil. 602.




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






June-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20660 June 13, 1968 - REPUBLIC CEMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21975 June 13, 1968 - MANUEL C. RAMOS v. ARDANT TRADING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22050 June 13, 1968 - PAN PACIFIC COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE ADVERTISING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24219 June 13, 1968 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28573 June 13, 1968 - RUFINO A. CRUZ, ET AL. v. CIPRIANO B. PRIMICIAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23906 June 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN MONTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24454 June 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO MANANGUITE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24429 June 22, 1968 - FILIPINO PIPE AND FOUNDRY CORPORATION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-21800 June 22, 1968 - ESTANISLAO M. LEUTERIO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24494 June 22, 1968 - JULIA D. CARIAGA v. MARIA JUSTO-GUERRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25572 June 22, 1968 - VICTORIA VDA. DE BUNGKAS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. Nos. L-25624-31 June 22, 1968 - PEDRO RALLA v. PABLO RALLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26791 June 22, 1968 - TOMAS M. PEREZ v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28593 June 25, 1968 - JUAN YSASI v. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21151 June 26, 1968 - LOURDES MUNSAYAC v. BENEDICTA DE LARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24428 June 26, 1968 - PETRONILA BULAN, ET AL. v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24258 June 26, 1968 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. GENEROSA S. VDA. DE JOVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26256 June 26, 1968 - PUA YI KUN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25389 June 27, 1968 - LIBERATION STEAMSHIP CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24837 June 27, 1968 - JULIAN C. SINGSON, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24932 June 27, 1968 - ENRIQUE B. DOMINGO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24768 June 27, 1968 - GIL V. MARIBAO, ET AL. v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19627 June 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ARMANDO L. ABAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21498 June 27, 1968 - ENCARNACION TEVES v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22978, L-24345, L-24770 June 27, 1968 - VALERIANO C. BUENO v. MONTANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25643 June 27, 1968 - JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA, ET AL. v. JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21061 June 27, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. RUPERTO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-24796 & L-25459 June 28, 1968 - DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24069 June 28, 1968 - LA FUERZA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22475 June 28, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MILAGROS M. VDA. DE GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-24193 June 28, 1968 - MAURICIO AGAD v. SEVERINO MABATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25354 June 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. L-24447 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY OBSANIA

  • G.R. Nos. L-21559-21560 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28378 June 29, 1968 - FRANCISCO P. FELIX, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24397 June 29, 1968 - PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL v. ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24339 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX LAVARIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24346 June 29, 1968 - JUAN E. TUASON v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20490 June 29, 1968 - IN RE: RAMON CU KING NAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21510 June 29, 1968 - JOHN I. NEVANS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22378 June 29, 1968 - CLEMENTE FORTUS, ET AL. v. ROSARIO NOVERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23540 June 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO DOSE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24039 June 29, 1968 - TEODORO PADILLA v. CITY OF PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24065 June 29, 1968 - MATIAS RANILLO, JR. v. PERSHING TAN QUETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24177-85 June 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. BITULOK SAWMILL, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28869 June 29, 1968 - PANTALEON V. PELAYO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28346 June 29, 1968 - URDANETA RURAL BANK v. FELIX SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25442 June 29, 1968 - HON. MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.