G.R. No. L-4865 December 22, 1952
R.J. ENRIQUEZ & CO., petitioner, vs. ATILANO M. ORTEGA, respondent.

FACTS

On December 16, 1949, respondent Atilano M. Ortega filed an application with the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate an ice plant in Iba, Zambales, and to sell its produce in that municipality and other towns in the province. Petitioner R.J. Enriquez & Co., an existing operator of a similar ice plant in Iba authorized to sell in the same areas, opposed the application. Following the then-prevailing practice of the Commission, Atty. Antonio H. Aspillera, Chief of the Legal Division, was authorized to receive the evidence from both parties. The evidence was presented before Atty. Aspillera, who subsequently submitted his report. Based on this evidence, the Public Service Commission rendered a decision on January 15, 1951, granting Ortega’s application. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, and while it was pending, also filed a motion to set aside the decision, invoking the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Silva vs. Cabrera. The Commission denied both motions. Petitioner now seeks a review, contending that the Commission’s refusal to set aside its decision is erroneous and contrary to the doctrine established in Silva vs. Cabrera.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in refusing to set aside its decision, despite the fact that the reception of evidence was delegated to Atty. Aspillera (the Chief of the Legal Division) and not to a Commissioner, as allegedly required by law and the ruling in Silva vs. Cabrera.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that while the ruling in Silva vs. Cabrera stated that under the Public Service Commission Act, as amended, the reception of evidence in a contested case may be delegated only to a Commissioner and not to any other person, this requirement is procedural and can be waived if no timely objection is interposed. A timely objection must be raised at the beginning of the hearing or investigation before the person assigned to receive the evidence, not after the investigation is completed. In this case, petitioner and its counsel appeared at the hearings before Atty. Aspillera, cross-examined the applicant’s witnesses, presented their own witnesses, and never objected to the delegation of authority to Atty. Aspillera throughout the entire proceedings. The objection was raised only after the Commission had rendered its decision. Therefore, the Commission correctly interpreted the Silva vs. Cabrera doctrine and properly denied the motion to set aside. The petition was denied with costs.