GR L 9068; (August, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9068; August 29, 1957
MARIANO SAMPORSANTO, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Mariano Samporsanto filed an application with the Public Service Commission for a permit to operate a passenger motor vehicle line. In his subsequent petition to review the Commission’s order denying his application, he named only the Public Service Commission as the respondent and served his petition and memorandum on it. The Commission, as a nominal party, filed no answer. The petition stated the application was uncontested, leading to the review proceeding without opposition. However, the record from the Commission revealed that several transportation operators—Antonio Heras, Vicente Heras, Cam Transit Co., Inc., Quirino Manalo, and others—had formally opposed the application in writing. These oppositors argued that existing services on the line were sufficient for the current traffic volume and that granting the application would cause ruinous competition. They were represented by attorneys at the initial hearing. Although they did not appear at a subsequent hearing where the petitioner presented evidence, there was no record of them withdrawing their opposition. The Commission’s order of denial cited, among other reasons, an agreement and directive not to entertain applications from existing operators for increased equipment or trips in Manila.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for review should be dismissed due to the petitioner’s failure to implead the necessary parties, specifically the oppositors in the Commission proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the petition for review is dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that it was the petitioner’s duty to implead as respondents in the review proceeding all parties who had opposed his application before the Public Service Commission. Citing the precedent in Toledo Transportation Co. vs. Posadas, the Court held that the oppositors were indispensable parties who should be given an opportunity to defend the Commission’s order in their favor. The Public Service Commission is merely a nominal respondent in such appeals. The petitioner’s failure to include these oppositors as respondents warranted the dismissal of his petition. The Court declined to grant the petitioner an opportunity to amend his petition, considering the resultant delay and the cogent reasons stated in the Commission’s appealed order. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.