Title
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Cadiao
Case
G.R. No. L-28725
Decision Date
Mar 12, 1968
BLTB contested PSC's jurisdiction and procedural due process in ETBC's unit registration post-lease; SC ruled PSC had authority, BLTB was heard, and dismissed petition for lack of merit.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28725)

Applicable Law

The issues relevant to this case pertain to public utility regulation as governed by the Public Service Commission, along with considerations of procedural due process. The petitioner contends that the Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction due to an ongoing arbitration concerning the lease agreement between the parties.

Factual Background

The crux of the petitioner’s argument revolves around an order issued on November 2, 1967, by Commissioner Cadiao that allowed the Eastern Tayabas Bus Company to acquire and register units for operation under a lease agreement expiring on March 6, 1968. The petitioner claims this order is void because it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and procedural due process was violated, as there was no hearing permitted before the issuance of the order.

Procedural Posture

Respondent Eastern Tayabas Bus Company filed a motion to dismiss the petition, alleging that the petitioner failed to represent material facts accurately and came to court with "unclean hands." The motion claimed that the presentation of the case lacked completeness and accuracy, leaving out critical elements of the dispute, including previous arbitration proceedings and a full hearing conducted by the Commission.

Court Findings on Jurisdiction and Due Process

The Court found that the actions of the Public Service Commission were within their jurisdiction as the issues raised involved public utility operations. It clarified that the earlier Batangas Laguna Tayabas Company ruling did not apply in the current dispute as that case pertained to private agreements and did not preclude the Commission from addressing matters concerning public interest.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the petitioner was indeed given procedural due process, as a full hearing on January 24, 1968, was conducted where both parties presented their arguments and evidence. The assertion that there was a violation of due process due to an absence of a prior hearing was deemed without merit, as the opportunity for a hearing was provided at the reconsideration stage.

Concl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.