G.R. No. L-20737 May 31, 1965
ROQUE ESCAÑO, petitioner, vs. RODRIGO C. LIM, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Roque Escaño applied to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for authority to operate ten taxicab units in Cagayan de Oro City and beyond. Over the opposition of respondent Rodrigo C. Lim, an existing operator, the PSC initially granted the application on May 5, 1959. However, on Lim’s motion for reconsideration, the PSC set aside this decision on May 20, 1959, as Lim had not completed presenting his evidence before a commissioned municipal judge. Subsequently, on September 28, 1959, the PSC granted Escaño provisional authority to operate three units. After the completion of evidence, the PSC revived its initial decision on December 21, 1959, authorizing Escaño to operate seven more taxicabs to complete the ten units.
Lim again moved for reconsideration on January 21, 1960, alleging Escaño was not qualified due to charges filed by a Public Service Inspector. These charges, in separate cases (Nos. 77920-C and 77921-C), accused Escaño and his wife of violating their certificates for TPU and AC services by allowing third parties to operate their vehicles for a fee. In a joint decision on March 24, 1960, the PSC found the Escaños guilty and cancelled their TPU and AC certificates, but their motion for reconsideration of this decision remained unresolved.
Acting on Lim’s motion, the three PSC Commissioners voted 2-1 to grant it, thereby revoking Escaño’s taxicab permit. Escaño moved for reconsideration on April 12, 1960. Due to a change in the Commission’s composition (increased from three to five members, with two vacancies), no action was taken. Meanwhile, on December 23, 1960, the PSC granted Escaño provisional authority to operate the seven taxicabs, considering his capital investment and the uncertainty of when his motion would be resolved.
After the Commission’s composition was completed, it issued an order on July 30, 1962, denying Escaño’s motion for reconsideration and cancelling his provisional permit, based on the prior finding of guilt in the TPU and AC cases. Escaño’s motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on December 12, 1962, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in revoking Roque Escaño’s taxicab permit based on a non-final conviction for alleged violations of his distinct TPU and AC certificates.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the appeal meritorious and ruled that it was an abuse of discretion for the PSC majority to penalize Escaño with the revocation of his taxicab permit based on a non-final conviction for a violation of a different certificate. The Court emphasized that the order of March 24, 1960, finding Escaño guilty of violating his TPU and AC certificates, was not yet final as his motion for reconsideration was still pending and could be subject to Supreme Court review. Furthermore, the dissenting Commissioner noted that the conviction was promulgated without sufficient notice or opportunity for Escaño to be heard, potentially rendering it void for lack of due process.
The Court held that a non-final conviction could not reasonably justify revoking a totally distinct certificate for a different service (taxicab). While a violation allows the Commission to revoke the specific certificate violated, it does not authorize the forfeiture of an entirely separate certificate. The Court also addressed a procedural issue, rejecting Lim’s claim that Escaño’s motion was a prohibited second motion, noting that the July 30, 1962 order also revoked the subsequent provisional authority of December 23, 1960, entitling Escaño to seek reconsideration.
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the PSC orders dated March 30, 1960, April 1, 1960, and July 30, 1962, which had revoked Escaño’s taxicab certificate. Costs were imposed on respondent Lim.