G.R. No. L-17305; November 28, 1962
DOMINADOR DANAN and ADORACION FERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. HON. A. H. ASPILLERA, and HON. ALEJANDRO A. GALANG, Commissioners of PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and CORTISAN & COMPANY, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner spouses held a certificate of public convenience to operate a 4-ton ice plant in Orion, Bataan, issued in 1958. On February 2, 1960, the Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order in Case No. 107481 canceling and revoking this certificate due to abandonment of service, as an inspection report indicated the plant had been non-operational since October 1956. Two days later, on February 4, 1960, the PSC, in a separate proceeding (Case No. 129277), granted respondent Cortisan & Company, Inc. a certificate to operate a 10-ton ice plant in the same municipality. Petitioners, who were notified, failed to appear at the hearing due to an alleged accident.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 4 order, which was denied on February 12, 1960. They subsequently filed a joint motion for reconsideration of the February 2 revocation order and for the reopening of Case No. 129277. After a hearing, the PSC denied this joint motion in an order dated April 5, 1960, a copy of which petitioners admittedly received on July 21, 1960.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for review filed with the Supreme Court was filed within the reglementary period, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Court to review the PSC’s orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for review. The legal logic is grounded on the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of statutory appeal periods. Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (the Public Service Act) governs appeals from PSC orders. It provides that a petition for review must be filed within thirty days from notification of the order or decision, or, if a motion for reconsideration is denied, within fifteen days from notice of the denial.
The Court found that the PSC’s order denying petitioners’ joint motion for reconsideration and reopening was received on July 21, 1960. Petitioners therefore had fifteen days, or until August 5, 1960, to file their petition for review. However, the instant petition was filed only on August 22, 1960, which was thirty-two days after receipt of the denial and clearly seventeen days beyond the fifteen-day reglementary period. Consequently, the appealed PSC orders—both the revocation of petitioners’ certificate and the grant of a new certificate to Cortisan—had become final, irrevocable, and executory. The failure to comply with the statutory deadline deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to review the merits of the case.
Despite this procedural dismissal, the Court took the opportunity to express grave concern over the PSC’s practice of revoking certificates ex parte without prior notice and hearing for the operator. The Court emphasized that such a practice violates constitutional due process, contravenes Section 16(n) of the Public Service Act, and is contrary to established jurisprudence. The Court admonished the Commission to always respect the constitutional rights of litigants.