GR L 20699; (February, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20699 February 26, 1965
OLONGAPO JEEPNEY OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and DIOSDADO BARTOLO, respondents.
FACTS
Diosdado Bartolo applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate a jeepney service on a route in Olongapo, Zambales. The Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order dated June 28, 1962, setting the hearing for July 30, 1962. The order required publication and individual notices by registered mail to be sent to 62 affected operators at least ten days before the hearing. While the notice was published in newspapers on July 5, 1962, the individual registered mail notices were posted in Manila only on July 25, 1962. Consequently, the addressees received these notices in the first week of August, after the scheduled hearing date. The Olongapo Jeepney Operators Association, an affected operator, filed a motion on August 6, 1962, to reopen the case or set aside any decision, arguing it was deprived of its day in court due to lack of proper notice. This motion was stamped as received but did not appear in the PSC’s case folder. A hearing proceeded on August 20, 1962, where an order of default was entered against the absent operators, and a decision was rendered on November 16, 1962, granting Bartolo’s application. The affected operators learned of the decision only in December 1962 upon inquiry at the Motor Vehicles Office, prompting the petition for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission’s decision granting the certificate of public convenience is null and void due to failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirement of sending individual notices to affected operators at least ten days before the hearing as mandated by its own order.
RULING
Yes, the decision is null and void. The PSC’s order required both publication and individual notices to affected operators. The individual notices were sent by registered mail only on July 25, 1962, for a July 30 hearing, which was not at least ten days before as required. The addressees in Zambales received them after the hearing date. No affidavit of mailing as required was presented. This inadequate notification deprived the oppositors of their day in court. The respondent’s contention that publication alone sufficed is incorrect, as the order’s requirements were conjunctive, not alternative. Therefore, the decision in PSC Case No. 62-3695 is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Commission for proper proceedings. No costs.