Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47663)
Facts:
The case involves Belstar Transportation, Inc. (petitioner) against the Board of Transportation, Baliwag Transit, Inc., and Pantranaco North Express, Inc. (respondents). The events leading to this case began on February 9, 1976, when Belstar Transportation, Inc. filed an application with the Board of Transportation for a certificate of public convenience to operate a public utility bus (PUB) service from Cabanatuan City to Cubao, Quezon City, via Caloocan City. The application was set for hearings, during which the petitioner presented evidence to demonstrate the public need for the proposed service. On August 4, 1977, the Board granted provisional authority for the operation of sixteen bus units, allowing the petitioner to commence its PUB service.
However, complications arose when the hearing for the application was rescheduled for September 8, 1977. The petitioner's counsel, Atty. Jose del Castillo, was unable to attend due to illness and sent his associate, Atty. Fa...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47663)
Facts:
Application for Certificate of Public Convenience
- On February 9, 1976, Belstar Transportation, Inc. (petitioner) filed an application with the Board of Transportation (Board) for a certificate of public convenience to operate a public utility bus (PUB) service from Cabanatuan City to Cubao, Quezon City, via Caloocan City and vice versa.
Provisional Authority Granted
- After multiple hearings, the Board granted petitioner provisional authority on August 4, 1977, to operate 16 ready units. Petitioner began operating the PUB service on the applied route.
Postponement of Hearings
- The hearing for petitioner's application was rescheduled multiple times. On September 8, 1977, petitioner's counsel, Atty. Jose del Castillo, failed to appear due to illness and sent his associate, Atty. Facundo Bautista, who requested a postponement. The hearing was rescheduled to September 22, 1977, with the condition that the date was non-transferable.
Motion for Postponement Denied
- Three days before the September 22 hearing, petitioner's counsel filed an urgent motion for postponement due to a conflicting hearing in another court. The motion was opposed by Baliwag Transit, Inc. (Baliwag), an oppositor, citing that petitioner's counsel had requested multiple postponements and had not yet presented evidence on petitioner's financial capacity.
Dismissal of Application
- On September 29, 1977, the Board dismissed petitioner's application and revoked its provisional authority. The Board cited three grounds:
- Petitioner operated only 2-3 units under its provisional authority.
- Petitioner's counsel failed to appear in four scheduled hearings.
- Petitioner had not presented evidence on its financial capacity despite multiple opportunities.
- On September 29, 1977, the Board dismissed petitioner's application and revoked its provisional authority. The Board cited three grounds:
Motion for Reconsideration Denied
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Board on December 21, 1977.
Allegations of Fraud
- Baliwag alleged that petitioner's purchase of 30 buses from Victory Liner was a scheme to deceive the Board. The transaction was questioned due to the close relationship between the parties, the lack of a down payment, and the absence of proper documentation, such as an affidavit of good faith for the chattel mortgage.
Petition for Review
- Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that the motion for postponement was justifiable, that public interest was involved, and that it had already invested in the PUB service. However, the petition was initially denied by the Supreme Court on April 5, 1978, but was later reconsidered on November 3, 1989.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
Discretion on Postponements
- The matter of postponement is within the sound discretion of the court or quasi-judicial body. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the decision should not be disturbed. In this case, the Board did not err in denying the postponement, given petitioner's repeated requests and failure to present crucial evidence.
Financial Capacity
- Petitioner failed to prove its financial capacity to operate the PUB service, a critical requirement for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience. The Board's dismissal was justified due to this failure.
Fraudulent Transaction
- The Court noted the questionable nature of the transaction between petitioner and Victory Liner, including the lack of proper documentation and the close relationship between the parties. This raised doubts about petitioner's ability to operate the service legitimately.
Timeliness of Petition
- The petition for review was filed late, and the Court initially denied it on this ground. Although the Court later reconsidered, the issue of tardiness remained a factor in the final decision.