G.R. No. L-25069 March 25, 1975
JOSE G. SAMALA, petitioner, vs. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC. and the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose G. Samala, operator of Saint Raphael Transit, applied with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate to operate twenty buses on the Naic-Manila line. His application was opposed by Saulog Transit, Inc., the existing operator on that line. The case was assigned to Associate Commissioner Francisco Perfecto for hearing. During the pendency of the application, the PSC, through an order prepared by Commissioner Perfecto, granted Samala provisional authority to operate six buses. Subsequently, the PSC en banc, through an order prepared by Commissioner Enrique Medina, revoked this provisional authority. Later, the PSC, again through Commissioner Medina, rendered a decision denying Samala’s application. Samala challenged these orders and the decision, arguing they were void for having been issued without due process, as Commissioner Medina, who did not hear the evidence, prepared them, while Commissioner Perfecto, who did hear the case, had prepared a favorable decision for Samala that was not promulgated.

ISSUE

Whether the orders and decision issued by the Public Service Commission, prepared by a commissioner who did not hear the evidence, violated due process and are therefore void.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court nullified the PSC’s order of July 3, 1963, its decision of September 7, 1965, and the implementing order of September 28, 1965. The Court ruled that the fundamental requirement of due process in administrative proceedings mandates that the official who renders the decision must have personally heard the evidence or, at the very least, must have thoroughly studied and evaluated the evidence presented. Here, Commissioner Enrique Medina, who prepared the assailed order and decision revoking provisional authority and denying the application, did not hear the witnesses or receive the evidence. The case was heard by Associate Commissioner Francisco Perfecto, who had prepared a comprehensive decision granting Samala’s application based on his evaluation of the evidence. The Court found that Commissioner Medina’s order and decision, which contradicted the findings of the hearing commissioner without Medina having examined the evidence, were rendered in violation of due process. They were mere reiterations of a prior order and lacked the requisite factual foundation. Consequently, the Court affirmed the validity of the undated decision penned by Commissioner Perfecto, which it found to be a complete and accurate evaluation of the evidence, and reinstated the preliminary injunction in favor of Samala.