G.R. No. L-2654 July 24, 1951
EUGENIO LIRIO, JR., ET AL., petitioners,

vs.
THE PHILIPPINE POWER AND DEVELOPMENT CO., respondents.

FACTS

The case is an appeal against the decision of the Public Service Commission dated August 26, 1948, which authorized the Philippine Power & Development Co. to put into effect the rates provisionally authorized in its order of October 6, 1945, less five percent, effective with the September 1948 bills. The proceedings before the Commission involved various hearings where appearances were made by counsel for the company, counsel for several municipalities in Laguna, the Provincial Fiscal of Laguna, counsel for the municipality of Sta. Cruz, and the People’s Counsel. The counsel for the municipalities, Jacobo Gonzales, filed an opposition to the provisional rates and later a motion for reconsideration of the Commission’s decision, which was denied. On December 1, 1948, Attorney Jacobo Gonzales filed a pleading on behalf of eleven individuals (Eugenio Lirio, Jr., et al.), who were consumers of electric fluid, claiming to be poor and without means to appeal, and authorizing him to represent them without fees. These individual petitioners had not appeared, personally or through counsel, in any of the hearings before the Public Service Commission.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners, who did not appear in the proceedings before the Public Service Commission, have the right to be heard on appeal before the Supreme Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that under Section 1, Rule 43, only “any party aggrieved” may file a petition for review of an order or decision of the Public Service Commission. Since the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings before the Commission, they have no right to appeal. The Court cited established legal principles, including American jurisprudence and U.S. Supreme Court decisions, stating that a writ of error or appeal can only be prosecuted by a party or privy to the record; third persons prejudiced by a judgment cannot obtain its review. The Court noted that the People’s Counsel, the municipal counsel, or the Provincial Fiscal, who had appeared before the Commission, could have appealed but chose not to, indicating their conformity with the decision. Granting the petitioners the privilege to appeal merely because they are consumers would set a contrary precedent, allowing any of the company’s subscribers or any person dissatisfied with a public utility’s rates to come directly to the Supreme Court without first presenting their case before the Commission. The petitioners, having failed to appear before the Commission, which has primary jurisdiction over such disputes, have no right to be heard on appeal.