G.R. No. L-29064. April 29, 1971.
AIR MANILA, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. MARCELO S. BALATBAT, DIRECTOR NILO DE GUIA, DR. GREGORIO Y. ZARA, and COL. JUAN B. GUEVARRA as members of the CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD and PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Philippine Air Lines (PAL) petitioned the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) for approval of new flight schedules. The CAB initially referred the petition for a hearing on economic justification. Subsequently, PAL filed an “Urgent Petition” for a consolidated schedule (DTS-35). The CAB, through Resolution No. 139(68), provisionally approved DTS-35 for 30 days, effective June 1, 1968. A key condition was that all schedules under DTS-35 lacking prior CAB approval were referred to a hearing examiner for economic justification.
Air Manila, a competitor, filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the CAB acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. It contended the provisional approval without a prior full hearing deprived it of due process, would saturate routes they shared, and adversely affect its schedules. Air Manila claimed the CAB’s action was capricious.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Aeronautics Board acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion in provisionally approving PAL’s consolidated flight schedule (DTS-35) without first conducting a full hearing, thereby violating Air Manila’s right to administrative due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held the CAB’s provisional approval did not violate administrative due process. Administrative due process requires notice, a hearing, an impartial tribunal, and a decision based on substantial evidence. The Court found these elements were satisfied. The provisional approval was a necessary interim measure to prevent a cessation of air services, as previous authorizations for some flights in the consolidated schedule were expiring. Crucially, the resolution itself mandated a post-approval hearing for all new schedules, preserving the right to be heard. Hearings were subsequently conducted, and the examiner’s report led the CAB to approve only a limited number of the proposed new flights for another 30-day period. Air Manila failed to prove it was denied notice or opportunity to participate in these hearings.
Furthermore, the Court noted the issue had become moot. The contested resolution was provisional, effective only until a specified date, and had been modified by subsequent CAB resolutions that adjusted flight times and limited the approved frequencies. Since the specific action challenged was temporary and had lapsed, and the CAB had provided a mechanism for relief through its ongoing hearings, judicial intervention via certiorari was unwarranted. The petition was dismissed.