G.R. No. L-19532; March 30, 1963
RUBEN L. VALERO and ESTRELLA L. DE VALERO, petitioners, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and DIOSDADO RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Ruben and Estrella Valero applied with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate to operate a 5-ton ice plant in Olongapo, Zambales. They complied with the PSC’s order for publication and notice, sending copies to the parties listed by the Commission, which did not include respondent Diosdado Rodriguez. After an unopposed hearing, the PSC granted the application. The decision, received by the Valeros on May 26, 1960, was to become final 30 days after notice.
On June 21, 1960, within that 30-day period, Rodriguez filed a petition to set aside the decision and reopen the case. He claimed to be an affected party as the operator of a 10-ton ice plant in San Marcelino, Zambales, authorized to sell ice in various towns including Olongapo, and that he had not been notified of the proceedings. The Valeros opposed, arguing Rodriguez was not authorized to serve Olongapo and, even if he were, the PSC lacked jurisdiction to authorize sales in Olongapo when his certificate was granted, as it was then a U.S. Naval Reservation.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission acted within its authority in setting aside its prior decision and reopening the case to allow Rodriguez to be heard.

RULING

Yes, the Public Service Commission acted correctly. The core legal principle is the fundamental right to due process. Although the Valeros meticulously followed the PSC’s specific notice requirements, the Commission itself found that Rodriguez was indeed an “affected party” whose interests would be impacted by the grant of a new ice plant franchise in Olongapo. His absence from the initial hearing was due to an omission in the list furnished by the PSC, not due to any fault of the applicants. Since his motion to set aside was filed before the decision in favor of the Valeros had attained finality, the PSC possessed ample authority to reconsider and reopen the proceedings.
The Court emphasized that administrative bodies like the PSC have the inherent power, akin to courts, to correct their own proceedings to ensure all interested parties are heard, especially when a decision is not yet final. The law expressly empowers the Commission to amend or revoke certificates if circumstances warrant. Depriving Rodriguez of his opportunity to oppose the application constituted a denial of his day in court. The technical compliance with the notice list did not override this substantive due process concern. Consequently, the PSC’s order to set aside the non-final decision and conduct a new hearing was not only permissible but was the proper remedial action. The Court deemed it premature to resolve the ancillary issue regarding the PSC’s jurisdiction over Olongapo at the time of Rodriguez’s certificate, as that could be ventilated in the reopened proceedings on the merits. The petition was denied.