G.R. No. L-32489. March 28, 1983.
CENON P. CORDERO and PEDRO CORDERO, petitioners, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, FRANCISCO CAGUICLA and MANUEL OPULENCIA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Cenon and Pedro Cordero hold a certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant in Bauan, Batangas, and sell ice in Bauan and Mabini. They appealed a decision of the Public Service Commission (PSC) authorizing private respondents Francisco Caguicla and Manuel Opulencia to sell ice and supply cold storage for Batangas province and Lipa City. The petitioners assail the PSC decision as null and void, contending there was a lack of the requisite notice of hearing. They specifically argue that the notice failed to comply with its own express requirement for individual service by registered mail or personal delivery on “all affected parties” listed in an attachment.
The respondents countered that notice was validly effected through publication in two newspapers of general circulation in Batangas. They argued the requirement for individual notices could not be complied with as no list was attached to the hearing officer’s notice, and that the PSC’s usual practice was not to send such individual notices. The core dispute centered on whether publication alone sufficed when the issued notice of hearing itself mandated additional individual notification.

ISSUE

Whether the decision of the Public Service Commission is null and void due to inadequate notice of hearing to affected parties.

RULING

Yes, the decision is null and void. The Supreme Court reversed the PSC decision, applying the precedent set in Olongapo Jeepney Operators Association vs. Public Service Commission. The legal logic is clear: where the PSC’s own notice of hearing expressly requires both publication and individual notice to affected parties listed in an attachment, the requirement is conjunctive, not alternative. The Court held that the PSC possesses the power to impose such a notification requirement. Mere publication in newspapers of general circulation, while sufficient for notifying the general public, does not satisfy the specific, additional mandate for individual service to known and listed competitors. The failure to provide this individual notice deprived the petitioners of their right to be heard and their day in court. Consequently, any decision rendered in disregard of this fundamental procedural right is void. Given this dispositive finding on the nullity of the proceedings due to defective notice, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the petitioners’ ancillary issue regarding the alleged illegal delegation of the hearing to a PSC official. Costs were imposed on the private respondents.