G.R. No. L-34820 April 30, 1973
CONSOLACION DIZON, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and JUANITA RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Juanita Rodriguez filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to appropriate the right to operate five taxi units under certificates of public convenience originally issued to petitioner Consolacion Dizon. The application was grounded on the alleged abandonment of these units, as they were not registered for the entire year of 1970 and up to the time of the application. Petitioner Dizon, along with another oppositor, filed written oppositions. During the hearing, respondent Rodriguez presented evidence of her financial capacity and public need. After Rodriguez rested her case, petitioner Dizon filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that since she had subsequently registered the units, the petition should be dismissed. The PSC denied the motion.
The PSC proceeded to decide the case against petitioner Dizon without allowing her to present her own evidence. The Commission ruled that the act of non-registration for a prolonged period constituted abandonment of the public service franchise, creating a void in service prejudicial to the public. It found that the subsequent registration after the petition was filed did not cure the prior abandonment. Consequently, it approved Rodriguez’s application for appropriation.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission denied petitioner Dizon procedural due process by deciding the case against her without affording her an opportunity to present evidence after denying her Motion to Dismiss.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the PSC decision, ruling there was no denial of due process. The core legal principle is that procedural due process mandates a hearing before a party is deprived of property. However, a hearing becomes unnecessary and amounts to a mere formality when the facts are undisputed and no additional evidence could alter the outcome. The Court emphasized that the right to be heard is not absolute when its exercise would be futile.
The decisive circumstance here was the factual finding of abandonment, which petitioner could not genuinely dispute. In her own Motion to Dismiss before the PSC, she effectively admitted the central fact of non-registration of the units for a significant period, only claiming subsequent remedial action. This admission rendered the factual basis for abandonment incontrovertible. The Court reasoned that since petitioner could not proffer any evidence to disprove the abandonment or to remedy the admitted failure to fulfill her obligation to operate, a further hearing would serve no purpose. The PSC’s action was thus not a denial of due process but a recognition that under the uncontested facts, a hearing would be characterized by futility. The petition was denied.