G.R. No. L-26132 August 27, 1973
AGAPITO CABUDIL & JUAN REYES, as petitioners-vendors, and ARSENIO RAMIREZ as petitioner-vendee, petitioners, vs. HON. GREGORIO C. PANGANIBAN as Associate Commissioner, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Agapito Cabudil and Juan Reyes, claiming to hold a franchise for a five-unit jitney service on the Novaliches-Blumentritt line under PSC Case No. 43277, allegedly sold this franchise to petitioner Arsenio Ramirez on August 25, 1959. Ramirez further claimed the PSC granted him a provisional authority to operate the line the following day. In 1965, after the PSC refused to issue operation stickers to Ramirez, the petitioners filed a petition seeking approval of the sale and the issuance of the corresponding stickers.
At the hearing before Associate Commissioner Gregorio Panganiban, the commission’s official records revealed a completely different factual scenario. The docket book for Case No. 43277 showed that Cabudil and Reyes were never granted a franchise for the Novaliches-Blumentritt line. Instead, they were authorized in 1963 to operate eight jitneys on entirely different routes: Duhat, Bocaue-Quiapo and Frisco-Piers. Crucially, the commission’s records also indicated that Cabudil and Reyes had already sold this actual franchise to a third party, Mario Pulongbarit, in 1961, and that sale had been duly approved by the PSC in 1963. No record existed of the alleged provisional authority granted to Ramirez.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in denying the petition for approval of the sale of the franchise, based on the discrepancy between the petitioners’ claims and the official records of the commission.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s order denying the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the primacy and reliability of official government records over unsubstantiated, private claims. The Court held that where the official docket of the Public Service Commission categorically shows that the purported vendors never held the franchise they claimed to have sold, and in fact had already lawfully disposed of the franchise they did hold to another party, then there exists no property right that could be the subject of a valid sale requiring PSC approval.
The petitioners’ claim of a denial of due process for not being allowed to present evidence was rejected. The hearing provided, where their counsel was present and the commission’s records were examined, constituted sufficient opportunity to be heard. Their failure to present any documentary evidence to support their claims—such as a copy of the alleged franchise or the purported provisional authority—despite having six years to do so, further undermined their position. The Court found no error in the respondent commissioner’s reliance on the commission’s uncontroverted records, which established that the Novaliches-Blumentritt line was a “non-existent line” as far as the petitioners-vendors were concerned. Consequently, there was literally nothing to sell, and thus no sale for the Public Service Commission to approve.