G.R. No. 33494, December 2, 1930
SERAPIA OCHOA, petitioner-appellant, vs. SERAFIN DE LEON, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Serafin de Leon applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate a transportation service between Talisay, Batangas, and Manila. While his application was pending, the Public Service Commission granted him a special permit to operate. Later, Serapia Ochoa, who had filed her application earlier (as indicated by a lower docket number), was granted a certificate for the same route. Subsequently, the commission granted de Leon’s application and ordered the issuance of a certificate to him, but he failed to pay the required fees on time, leading to the revocation of his authority. Upon de Leon’s motion, the commission reinstated its decision and ordered the issuance of the certificate. Ochoa was not notified of de Leon’s application or the reinstatement order. She filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting and reinstating a certificate of public convenience to Serafin de Leon without notifying Serapia Ochoa, an existing operator on the same route.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the Public Service Commission reinstating the certificate in favor de Leon. Applying the doctrine in A. L. Ammen Transportation Co. vs. De Margallo, the Court held that Ochoa, as an earlier applicant and grantee of a certificate for the same route, was entitled to notification of de Leon’s application under Section 29 of Act No. 3108. The lack of notification rendered all orders and decisions on de Leon’s application not legally binding upon Ochoa, and her rights to operate the transportation service remained intact. The commission’s orders were set aside. No costs were awarded.