Case Digest (G.R. No. L-550)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-550)
Facts:
Quirino G. Gregorio v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 550, January 30, 1947, Supreme Court En Banc, Tuason, J., writing for the Court.On May 10, 1940, petitioner Quirino G. Gregorio filed with the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to install, operate and maintain an ice-plant service in Pasay, Rizal, docketed as Commission Case No. 59690. The usual prewar steps (publication of notice and preliminary preparation for hearing) were taken, but hearings were postponed repeatedly and the case remained pending until the outbreak of World War II suspended proceedings.
In February 1945 the records of the Commission, including Case No. 59690, were lost or destroyed. Upon reconstitution of the Commission, it announced a limited period during which parties could request reconstruction of burned files; petitioner moved for reconstitution. The Commission, however, treated petitioner’s motion as or converted it into a new application (a point petitioner later contested), and petitioner was required to take certain procedural steps thereafter.
Eleven ice-plant applications (including petitioner’s) were set for joint hearing on September 17, 1945. At the hearing the Commissioner announced a policy of granting only temporary certificates (three to four years) and announced that only applicants who already possessed complete ice-making machinery and equipment ready for set-up would be entertained. After hearing, six applicants who had equipment were granted certificates (valid to December 31, 1948); those without equipment, including petitioner, were denied. Petitioner moved for reconsideration; the Commission explained the policy as an exercise of its regulatory power under Commonwealth Act No. 146 to meet post-war emergency conditions and to deter speculative filings.
Petitioner filed this action in the Supreme Court by petition for a writ of certiorari seeking annulment of the Commission’s order and a directive to reconstitute his original prewar application (Case No. 59690). The Court treated the pleadings as raising three core questions and proceeded to decide them on certiorari review under the jurisdictional standards applicable to Commission orders.
Issues:
- Did the Public Service Commission have jurisdiction to disregard petitioner’s prewar application and treat his motion for reconstitution as a new application?
- Did the Commission have authority to deny petitioner’s application solely because he did not possess ice-making machinery at the time of hearing?
- Was petitioner denied his right to a hearing or “his day in court”?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)