G.R. No. L-9068. August 29, 1957

Submitted for final  decision, this case appears to be in adequately  presented—thru the appellant’s fault.

He  petitioned for the review of the Public  Service  Commission’s order denying his application for permit to  operate a  line  of motor  vehicles  for  passenger  service.  He named said Commission as  the only respondent, and served on the latter his petition and his memorandum.  The latter, being merely  a nominal party, not required  to defend its actuations,^[1] filed no answer nor reply.   To uphold  such order was the task of the party or parties who had opposed appellant’s application for permit.  And, it was appellant’s duty to implead such parties  as respondents here.^[2]

Naming no  respondent except the Commission,  appellant stated in his petition that his application was uncontested. So  this petition for review  was heard without opposition after the Commission had expressed its lack  of interest in the subject matter. However upon examination of the record for  purposes of decision, we found that several transportation operators  had  objected in  writing to the petitioner’s application, to  wit:  Antonio  Heras, Vicente Heras, Cam Transit Co., Inc.,  Quirino Manalo and others.

They stated that  the services “presently  rendered”  by them on the line solicited by  applicant were sufficient to take care of the “present volume” of traffic; that applicant’s plan would cause ruinous competition etc.  etc.

And at  the first  hearing of November 2,6, 1954  they were represented by their respective attorneys.  It is true that when the case  was again called for hearing on  February  21,  1955, none  of them  appeared, and  petitioner. presented evidence  without contradiction before the Commission’s  referee; but  such failure  does  not mean  withdrawal of their previously expressed objections.  No statement exists in the record construable in any sense as withdrawal.  And although they have not thereafter asked for opportunity to introduce evidence to support their opposition, it is reasonable to  infer that they refrained from further occupying the Commission’s attention because they were satisfied with  the order  dismissing  the application, for the reason among others, of applicant’s failure to prosecute  for about four years.   The  Commission’s order of dismissal says in  part:

“In  view  of all the foregoing,  and  pursuant  to the agreement of the Commissioners, dated  October 29, 1952, the recommendation of the  National Traffic Commission and the directive of the President of the Philippines, dated October 81, 1952, not to entertain applications of  existing  operators for increase of equipment or trips in Manila in which category this application falls, the said application is hereby DENIED.”

The appellant should have  impleaded these oppositors as respondents.   For this failure, in line with the  ruling in Toledo Transportation case supra, we  have to dismiss this petition for review.

We do not give appellant another chance to amend as was done in the Toledo case,  supra, what with the resultant  delay and the cogent reasons advanced  in the appealed order.

Petition   to  review   dismissed,   with  costs  against petitioner.

Paras, C J.,  Padilla, Montemayor,  Reyes, A., Bautista Angela,  Labrador,  Concepcion, Reyes, J. B, L., Endencia and  Felix, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Although it may defend, if it so chooses.

^[2] Toledo Transportation Co. vs. Posadas, 57 Pfiil. 692.