G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968
CONSUELO S. CALALANG, petitioner, vs. ENRIQUE MEDINA, Commissioner of the Public Service Commission; ALEX F. DE GUZMAN, JOSE A. FORNIER, FRANCISCO A. PERFECTO, GREGORIO C. PANGANIBAN, and JOSIAS K. GUINTO, all Associate Commissioners of the Public Service Commission, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Consuelo S. Calalang was granted a franchise ( Republic Act No. 2290 ) on June 19, 1959, to operate an ice plant and cold storage in Hagonoy, Bulacan. She filed an application for a certificate of public convenience (PSC Case No. 126911) on August 17, 1959. Prior to this, on July 27, 1959, Aurora Tanjangco (administratrix of the estate of Gervacio Tanjangco, an existing ice plant operator in Hagonoy) filed an application (PSC Case No. 126537) to increase her plant’s capacity. Calalang objected and moved for a joint hearing of the two cases, but the PSC (through Associate Commissioner Aspillera) denied her opposition and motion on September 10, 1959. Calalang’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. She then filed a certiorari case (G.R. No. L-16068) before the Supreme Court, which issued a restraining order. However, Commissioner Aspillera had already rendered a decision on September 28, 1959, granting Tanjangco’s increase. The Supreme Court later, on November 29, 1960, in L-16068, reversed the PSC’s orders, set aside the proceedings and decision in Case No. 126537, and ordered the PSC to jointly try Cases Nos. 126537 and 126911. Meanwhile, on September 26, 1960, the PSC denied Calalang’s own application in Case No. 126911. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in L-16068, Calalang filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration in Case No. 126911. Despite her follow-ups, the PSC took no action on this motion. On May 24, 1965, Calalang filed the present petition for mandamus to compel the PSC Commissioners to act on her motion for reconsideration and to recover damages. Twenty days later, on June 14, 1965, the PSC issued an order setting aside its decision in Case No. 126911 and setting both cases for joint trial, rendering the mandamus petition moot. Calalang, however, pressed her claim for damages.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s claim for damages can be adjudicated by the Supreme Court after the principal action for mandamus has become moot.

RULING

The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the claim for damages is incidental to the petition for mandamus. Since the mandamus action became moot when the PSC complied by ordering a joint trial, the Court’s original jurisdiction to entertain the claim for damages is debatable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that there is no means to ascertain the amount of damages allegedly sustained at that point. A final judgment fixing the conditions and capacity of Calalang’s ice plant operation is necessary before such damages can be legally determined. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition without making a pronouncement on costs.