G.R. No. L-31620 October 29, 1971
GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. HECTOR G. MOYA and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Hector G. Moya filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate to operate a 20-unit taxi service in Bacolod City and Negros. The application was set for hearing on March 31, 1969. On the morning of that hearing, petitioner Generoso Villanueva Transportation Co., Inc., through counsel, filed a “Motion to Dismiss” the application. The motion alleged that Moya’s existing franchise prohibited him from applying for additional units during its lifetime. The motion, while bearing a notation “Copy furnished Atty. Jesus Torrecareon, for Applicant,” contained no notice of the time and place for its hearing. At the initial hearing before Commissioner Cadiao, counsel for the petitioner and another oppositor appeared and requested a postponement to file written oppositions. The Commissioner granted a five-day period for filing oppositions and postponed the case. The petitioner never filed a written opposition. Subsequently, Moya filed an ex parte motion for an early hearing, and the case was set without notice to the petitioner. The PSC then granted Moya’s application.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission committed a denial of due process by rendering its decision without conducting a hearing on the petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of due process. The PSC correctly treated the petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss as a mere “scrap of paper” and thus properly disregarded it. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with procedural rules designed to secure the adjective phase of due process. Under Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, a motion must contain a notice of hearing and show proof of service to the adverse party. The petitioner’s motion was fatally defective on both counts: it lacked a notice of hearing, and the applicant’s counsel denied receiving a copy, with the petitioner failing to prove service. Furthermore, the petitioner compounded this procedural failure by not informing the Commissioner of the motion’s filing during the initial hearing, which could have allowed for a cure of the defect. The transcript also confirmed that the petitioner’s counsel joined in requesting a postponement to file an opposition, which was never done. The Court distinguished this case from instances where procedural defects were cured, such as when the court resets a hearing on a motion or when receipt is admitted. No such curative circumstances were present here. Consequently, the PSC was justified in proceeding as if the application was uncontested. The rules of procedure, while at times harsh in application, are essential for orderly litigation and were correctly enforced. The petition was dismissed.