G.R. No. L-19807 August 10, 1965
AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS, petitioner, vs. DIONISIO CABIGUEN, respondent.

FACTS

On December 14, 1956, respondent Dionisio Cabiguen filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate a TPU service on the Puerto Princesa-Babuyan and Puerto Princesa-Panacan routes. Petitioner Agustin O. Caseñas, an existing operator on those lines, opposed the application, claiming his service was adequate and satisfactory, that he should be given preference for any additional service needed, and that granting the application would cause ruinous competition. The PSC delegated the Justice of the Peace (JP) of Puerto Princesa to take depositions. After several postponements requested by the petitioner, the JP finally set the hearings for April 26, 27, and 29, 1957. Petitioner’s counsel filed motions for postponement, which were denied. Despite pending motions, petitioner and his counsel failed to appear on April 26. Instead, counsel sent a telegram requesting postponement, which did not reach the court. The JP proceeded with the hearing in their absence, and respondent presented his evidence. Petitioner later moved to set aside these depositions, but the PSC denied the motion, though it allowed petitioner to present his own evidence before the JP. Based on the evidence from both parties, the PSC granted respondent’s application on June 10, 1958, finding public necessity and convenience warranted the new service. Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the PSC’s findings on public necessity and the respondent’s financial capacity were conclusive; and (2) Whether procedural irregularities, specifically the taking of depositions in the absence of petitioner and his counsel, deprived petitioner of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the findings of the PSC on factual matters—such as the need for the service and the respondent’s financial capacity—are conclusive and binding, as they were based on substantial evidence. Regarding the procedural issue, the Court found no deprivation of due process because petitioner and his counsel were duly notified of the hearings, had ample time to prepare, and were ultimately allowed to present their evidence, which the PSC considered. The Court also noted that the petition for review was filed outside the reglementary period, as a second motion for reconsideration (which was pro forma and filed without leave) did not suspend the period to appeal. On this ground alone, the petition could be dismissed.