G.R. No. L-5960 June 17, 1953
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ANTONIO HERAS, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Fortunato F. Halili, is engaged in the passenger and freight transportation business under the name “Halili Transit” with a certificate of public convenience, operating buses within Manila and neighboring towns and cities. In its decisions dated July 20, 1951 (Case No. 61475) and January 14, 1952 (Case No. 62969), the Public Service Commission authorized the respondent Antonio Heras to operate fifteen (15) buses on the City Hall (Manila)-Balara line via Quiapo and España, passing through a specified route involving Arroceros, Quezon Blvd., España, España Extension, Cubao, San Juan-Marikina Road, and Baranka Road.
On June 30, 1952, the Public Service Commission, without notifying affected operators, especially the petitioner, and without a prior hearing, issued an ex-parte order (Appendix D) altering Antonio Heras’s route on the City Hall-Balara line. The order authorized Heras’s buses to pass through Silangan Avenue (both ways) to the University of the Philippines, instead of the originally authorized San Juan-Marikina and Baranka roads. The petitioner, who is the most affected by this route change, was not even sent a copy of said June 30 order and only learned of it six days before filing the present certiorari petition.
On July 7, 1952, the Public Service Commission, again without notifying operators, especially the petitioner, and without hearing interested parties, and acting on a motion by Antonio Heras dated June 28, 1952, issued another ex-parte order (Appendix E). This order altered for a second time the route of eight of Antonio Heras’s fifteen buses, allowing them to pass through Quezon Blvd. in Quezon City, Quezon Blvd. Extension, Manila, the street crossing Elliptical Road, University Avenue, University of the Philippines, up to Balara (known as the “Derecho route”), instead of the route authorized in its June 30, 1952 order (España Extension, Sampaloc Ave., Kamuning Road, and Silangan Ave. to the University of the Philippines).
The petitioner contends that the Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing its orders of June 30, 1952, and July 7, 1952; that the change in the respondent’s bus routes has caused and is causing irreparable loss to his established business; and that having no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, he resorts to this Court via certiorari, seeking the revocation of said orders.
The respondents contend that in its June 30, 1952 order, the Commission corrected the route authorized to Pilar Estrella (from whom Antonio Heras acquired the transportation business) by fixing the only route that could be granted based on the evidence presented by applicant Pilar Estrella; that the service established on said route, according to the evidence, was for the convenience and benefit of district residents, but an error placed a different route in the decision than the one applied for and proven. They argue the Commission, in issuing its June 30 order, exercised the power to amend granted by Section 16(m) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 , as amended, and thus no hearing was necessary; it merely corrected a manifest error considering the evidence in the case, and the Commission has the power to correct an erroneous decision at any time, especially when it conflicts with the evidence on record.
Regarding the July 7, 1952 order in Case No. 65683, the respondents contend that the Commission granted provisional permission to Antonio Heras to operate eight buses because he was already provisionally authorized to operate the same number on the portion of the highway connecting the corner of Kanluran and Timog Avenues with the corner of Hilaga and Silangan Avenues; that the “Derecho route” is the shortest way to the University of the Philippines; and that the Commission granted the provisional permit after receiving evidence supporting Heras’s application and becoming convinced of an urgent need for the requested service, following established doctrines in Silva vs. Cabrera and Ablaza vs. Public Service Commission & Pampanga Bus Co.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing its ex-parte order of June 30, 1952, which altered a previously authorized bus route without notice and hearing.
2. Whether the Public Service Commission acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in issuing its ex-parte order of July 7, 1952, granting a provisional permit to alter bus routes without notice and hearing.

RULING

1. On the June 30, 1952 Order (Appendix D): The Court ruled that the Public Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion. The Commission’s contention that it was merely correcting a manifest error based on the evidence does not justify amending the decision motu proprio. Section 16(m) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 grants the Commission the power to amend, modify, or revoke a certificate at any time when the facts and circumstances upon which said certificate was issued have been misrepresented or materially changed, but this must be done “upon proper notice and hearing.” An amendment that is not merely formal and seriously affects the rights of parties should not be made without hearing the interested parties. In this case, the bus route was changed, and according to the petitioner, it prejudiced him. Such a procedure could lead to great injustices, as the Commission, even in good faith, could cause significant harm to some operators and favor others, overriding acquired rights. The rights of parties acquired under a decision should not be revoked with a stroke of a pen under the pretext of amendment, just as citizens should not be deprived of their property without due process of law. Therefore, the order of June 30, 1952, is revoked.
2. On the July 7, 1952 Order (Appendix E): The Court ruled that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The petitioner’s reliance on the case of Biñan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Gabriel P. Prieto is misplaced, as it is not applicable to the present case. The record does not show why the petitioner, as an opponent in Case No. 65683, did not present his evidence after the applicant’s evidence was presented, nor does it show that the Commission acted with abuse of discretion. The Commission is not obligated to wait indefinitely for an opponent to present evidence. If it believed, based on the evidence presented, that there was an urgent need to issue a provisional permit, its resolution should not be altered. After all, if the petitioner, as an opponent in said case, proves that the lines already established by him and other old operators provide sufficient accommodation for the public, the application will be denied and the provisional permit automatically canceled. Therefore, the petition is denied with respect to the order of July 7, 1952.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The order of June 30, 1952 (Appendix D) is revoked, and the petition is denied with respect to the order of July 7, 1952 (Appendix E), without pronouncement as to costs.