G.R. No. L-34978 February 26, 1988
ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, CAROLINA LAT PEREZ DE TAGLE, and PEDRO C. LAT, JR., petitioners, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ROBERTO C. DIAZ, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Roberto C. Diaz applied with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a two-ton ice plant in Davao City. Petitioners, existing ice plant operators, filed an opposition. The hearing was set for August 17, 1970. On that date, neither the petitioners nor their counsel appeared. The PSC declared the case uncontested, received Diaz’s evidence, and later granted him provisional authority to operate. Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement, claiming their counsel mistakenly calendared the hearing for August 6 (a Sunday). They subsequently filed a motion to reopen the case, but the PSC denied it. After several extensions of the provisional authority, the PSC rendered a decision on February 24, 1972, granting Diaz a permanent certificate.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the PSC deprived petitioners of due process by proceeding with the hearing in their absence and subsequently granting the certificate. A secondary issue is whether the grant of the certificate to Diaz was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s decision, ruling that no denial of due process occurred. Petitioners received proper notice through publication and direct service. Their failure to attend the scheduled hearing was due to their counsel’s negligence in mis-calendaring the date, which is not a valid ground to nullify the proceedings. The Court emphasized that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, which were afforded; it does not guarantee that a party will actually take advantage of that opportunity. The PSC acted correctly in proceeding with the case as uncontested when petitioners were absent without prior leave.
On the merits, the Court found the grant of the certificate to Diaz valid. He proved he was a Filipino citizen, financially capable, and that the service would promote public interest. Evidence showed Davao City’s growing population and need for ice, particularly for its fishing industry. The Court rejected petitioners’ claim of ruinous competition, noting they were large-scale operators authorized in multiple provinces, while Diaz was granted a permit for only a small, two-ton plant in Davao City. The paramount consideration is public convenience, not the protection of existing operators from competition. The mere possibility of reduced earnings does not constitute ruinous competition, which requires proof that the business would be unable to yield a fair return on investment.