Facts:

The case involves Air Manila, Inc. as the petitioner against the respondents which include Hon. Marcelo S. Balatbat and members of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB): Nilo de Guia, Dr. Gregorio Y. Zara, and Col. Juan B. Guevarra, along with Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). The case stems from events that began on April 1, 1968, when PAL submitted a petition to the CAB seeking approval of a new flight schedule that included seven specific flights. The CAB first deferred action on this petition on April 15, 1968, later referring it to a hearing examiner for economic justification on April 22, 1968. Following a series of motions and deferments by PAL regarding the CAB's resolutions, the Board ultimately issued Resolution No. 139 (68) on May 28, 1968, which provisionally approved a consolidated domestic traffic schedule (DTS-35) that would be valid for 30 days.

Air Manila, Inc. filed a petition on May 31, 1968, alleging that the Board acted without jurisdiction and with grave ab

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Air Manila, Inc. filed a petition for certiorari challenging Resolution No. 139 (68) of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) in CAB Case No. 1414.
• The petitioner contended that the CAB acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion by approving a new domestic traffic schedule (DTS-35).

Chronology and Procedural History

• On April 1, 1968, Philippine Air Lines (PAL) petitioned the CAB for approval of a proposed schedule that included seven new flights and the adjustment of the existing schedules.
• April 15, 1968 – The CAB deferred action on PAL’s petition for further study.
• April 22, 1968 – The Board passed Resolution No. 109 (68), referring the petition to a hearing examiner for economic justification.
• April 29, 1968 – PAL moved for reconsideration of Resolution No. 109 (68).
• May 6, 1968 – The Board deferred the reconsideration motion until PAL resumed its DC-3 services as stipulated.
• May 9, 1968 – PAL filed another motion for reconsideration, arguing that the condition for DC-3 services was improper since the new flights were to be serviced by jet-prop or pure jet equipment.
• May 20, 1968 – The Board, through Resolution No. 131 (68), deferred action on the second motion.
• May 15, 1968 – PAL filed an Urgent Petition for approval of a consolidated schedule (DTS-35) that covered both jet and jet-prop flights together with an interim DC-3 schedule.
• May 28, 1968 – The CAB issued Resolution No. 139 (68), provisionally approving DTS-35 for 30 days (June 1–30, 1968) with specific conditions:

- a. The flight between Manila and San Fernando, La Union (F210/211) had to be operated daily instead of twice a week. - b. All schedules under DTS-35, which had not been previously approved, were to be referred to a hearing examiner for economic justification. - a. Following the hearing examiner’s report, several of the proposed flights were later approved for 30 days starting July 31, 1968, through Resolution No. 190 (68). - b. Air Manila, Inc. intervened on May 31, 1968, by filing the present petition, arguing that the consolidated schedule would saturate routes it served and adversely affect its own flight schedules. - c. The petitioner also alleged that the provisional approval deprived it of the right to be heard, and that issuing the authorization without complete economic justification was capricious and beyond the authority of the Board.

Concerns Raised by the Petitioner

• The petitioner argued that the approval of the new DTS-35 schedule without proper notice and evidence was a violation of administrative due process.
• It was contended that the increased number of flights would negatively impact routes already served by Air Manila, Inc., effectively saturating the market and disregarding the petitioner’s schedule.
• The petition claimed that the CAB’s provisional and temporary permit was an abuse of discretion and exceeded the powers vested in it.

Board’s Justification and Subsequent Adjustments

• The respondents maintained that:

- a. The issuance of the provisional DTS-35 was necessary to prevent the immediate suspension of services on certain routes. - b. There was an ongoing process involving hearings and evidentiary submissions regarding the economic justification of the new flights.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Abuse of Discretion

• Whether the Civil Aeronautics Board acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction by issuing Resolution No. 139 (68) with a provisional approval of DTS-35.
• Whether the Board’s action amounted to a grave abuse of discretion in the light of the procedural requirements.

Administrative Due Process

• Whether the provisional approval of PAL’s consolidated schedule deprived Air Manila, Inc. of its right to be heard.
• Whether the notice and opportunity to present evidence in the hearings were adequate under the principles of administrative due process.

Impact on Existing Services

• Whether the new schedule involving increased frequencies adversely affected the petitioner’s existing routes and schedules.
• Whether the temporary permit issued by the Board was justified by the necessity to maintain uninterrupted public service.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)