Halili vs
Public Service Commission
Facts:
A petition for certiorari was filed seeking for the revocation and
annulment of an order by respondent Public Service Commission dated July 3,
1952 which changed part of the route of the bus service established by the
respondent CAM Transit Co., Inc., between Balara and City Hall, Manila.
Petitioner herein is the holder of various certificates of public convenience
to operate auto-truck services between Balara and various points in the City of
Manila and its suburbs.
On July 2, 1952, CAM Transit Co., Inc. filed a petition with the
respondent Commission alleging that the route authorized in its City
Hall(Manila)-Balara line is entirely different from that supported by the evidence
presented in the hearing, and praying that the certificate be amended. On the
following day, July 3, and without previous notice to the petitioner or a
previous hearing thereon, ordered the modification of the line in accordance
with the petition.
Issue:
WON the order of the amendment of the route, without notice to the
petitioner and other interested parties, or hearing in which the latter may be
given opportunity to be present, was lawfully and validly issued by the
Commission.
WON petitioner’s right to due process was violated.
Held:
The order by the Commission of amending the route was not validly issued
and petitioner’s right to due process was violated.
In the first place, the power to issue provisional permits is expressly
authorized. In the second place, the change ordered is not provisional merely,
like that granted in a provisional permit, but final and permanent in
character. In the third place, even if the Commission is not bound by the rules
in judicial proceedings, it must bow its head to he constitutional mandate that
no person shall be deprived of a right without due process of law. The "due
process of law" clause of the Constitution binds not only the Government
of the Republic of the Philippines, but also each and everyone of its branches,
agencies, etc. (16 C.J.S., 1149.)"Due process of law, or,
in the mean accord with the procedure outlines in the law, or, in the absence
of express procedure, under such safeguards for the protection of individual
rights as the settled maxims of law permit and sanction for the particular
class of cases to which the one in question belongs," (16 C.J.S., 1141.)
In the case at bar, the Public Service Act does not include the amendment made
in the disputed order among those may be ordered without notice or hearing in
accordance with Section 17 of the Act. Is the amendment, without notice or
hearing, permitted by the well settled maxims of law? We declare it is not,
because due process of law guarantees notice and opportunity to be heard
to persons who would be affected by the order or act contemplated.
In a General sense it means the right to be heard before some
tribunal having jurisdiction to determine the question in dispute.
By
"due process of law" is meant orderly proceeding adopted to the
nature of the case, before a tribunal having jurisdiction, which proceeds upon
notice, with an opportunity to bee heard, with full power to grant relief.
Some legal procedure in which the person proceeded against, if he is to
be concluded thereby, shall have an opportunity to defend himself.
A course of proceeding according to these rules and principles which have
been established in our system of jurisprudence for the protection and
enforcement of private rights.
