GR L 24219; (June, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24219 June 13, 1968
PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC., petitioner, vs. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, and FILIPINAS ORIENT AIRWAYS, INC., respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Filipinas Orient Airways, Inc. (Fairways) filed an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity with the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) to operate air transport services. Petitioner Philippine Air Lines, Inc. (PAL) opposed this application. During the pendency of the proceedings, Fairways filed an urgent petition for provisional authority to operate. Despite PAL’s opposition, the CAB granted Fairways provisional authority to operate scheduled and non-scheduled domestic air services using DC-3 aircraft, subject to conditions, including that the authority would last until the main application was finally decided. PAL’s motion for reconsideration was denied. PAL then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging the CAB acted illegally and with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Civil Aeronautics Board acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in granting Fairways a provisional operating authority during the pendency of the main application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the writ. The Court held:
1. The CAB is explicitly authorized by Section 10-C(1) of Republic Act No. 776 to issue a “temporary operating permit.” This power can be exercised before the completion of evidence on the main petition, as indicated by the authority to grant such a permit “upon its own initiative.” The policy under public service law, which allows provisional permits prior to a final decision on the merits, applies similarly to commercial air transport.
2. The CAB’s finding that Fairways established prima facie its fitness, willingness, and ability to operate, and that there was a public need for more air service, is presumed valid under the legal presumption that official duty has been duly performed. Courts should respect findings of fact of administrative agencies like the CAB unless there is absolutely no supporting evidence or the evidence is clearly insubstantial. PAL failed to satisfactorily show a lack of evidentiary support.
3. PAL was not denied due process. The requirements for a valid decision on the merits, as outlined in Ang Tibay v. C.I.R., do not apply to an interlocutory order like the grant of provisional authority. Interlocutory orders in administrative proceedings may sometimes be issued ex parte without previous notice and hearing, consistent with due process. The constitutional requirement for decisions to state facts and law clearly applies to decisions on the merits, not interlocutory orders.
4. The provisional nature of the permit refutes the claim that it prejudged the merits of the case. The CAB’s findings reflected only a prima facie view of the evidence presented up to that point and did not constitute an advanced expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the application.