JOSE A. BELTRAN, VICENTE B. MAGADIA, AND JOSE O. STA. ROMANA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLES ENRIQUE MEDINA AND ISIDRO TAYAG, FIRST DIVI­SION, PUBLIC SERVICE COM­MISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction, filed by Jose A. Beltran, Vicen­te B. Magadia, and Jose O. Sta. Romana
against Commissioners Enrique Medina and Isidro Tayag
of the First Division, Public Service Commission, some twenty-nine members of
the Bus Ope­rators Association of the Philippines (BOAP), and the BOAP itself,
to enjoin the enforcement and implementation of the Commissioners orders dated
December 8, 1965 and January 17, 1966, respectively, and, after due notice and
hearing, to declare them null and void for being contrary to law.

On April 24, 1964
the respondent bus operators (hereinaf­ter referred to as the respondent
operators), through the BOAP, filed with the Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the Commission) an application for the increase of bus fares
(docketed therein as Case 64-2365).  More
specifically, they prayed for authority (1) to increase by one centavo per
passenger per kilometer one-way whatever fares they were then authorized to
charge, and (2) to charge a minimum fare of fifteen centavos (PO.15) per
passenger.

On August 11, 1964
the Commission scheduled for Septem­ber
16, 1964 the first hearing on the above application.  In connec­tion with the said hearing, the
Commission required the respon­dent operators to notify all municipal mayors
and councils, pro­vincial governors and boards, and city mayors and councils
through­out the Philippines
about the aforesaid application by furnishing them
copies thereof as well as of the notice of hearing issued there under, at least
15 days beforehand.  This was apart from
the gene­ral notice by publication made by the respondent operators in com­pliance
with the Commission’s order for the publication of the said application in two
newspapers of general circulation.

On September 16, 1964,
despite the publication and the notices by mail sent to all municipal,
provincial and city authorities by the respondent operators,
only the provinces of Sorsogon, Camarines
Sur, Batangas, Quezon, Nueva Ecija,
and the City of Manila registered
their formal opposition to the application.

The petitioner Magadia,
in his capacity as a resident of Project 6, Quezon City, and as president of the Project 6 Residents Association, filed an
opposition on March 24, 1965.  The Toro Hills Homeowners Association (Quezon City), through counsel
likewise filed an opposition on June 2,
1965.  Finally, by letter
dated September 29, 1965,
the petitioner Beltran registered in his and in behalf of his co-residents of
Project 4, Quezon City,
a similar opposition.

By notice dated March
15, 1965, pursuant to section 3 of the Public Service Act, as amended,
the application for rate increase was assigned to Commissioner Josias K. Guinto.

On February 26, 1965,
after about four members of the ap­plicant BOAP had presented their evidence in
support of the appli­cation and rested their case, an urgent ex parte petition for provi­sional authority to adjust
passenger rates was filed jointly by the respondents La Mallorca
and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc.  Pursuant to the Commission’s order, the
aforesaid urgent petition was published on March 4, 1965 in the Daily Mirror and the Manila
Times.  On March 8, 1965 a similar petition was filed jointly
by the respondents Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Inc. and
the Batangas Transportation Co., Inc., followed by
another filed on March 24, 1965
by the respondents Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and the Pangasinan Transporta­tion Co., Inc.  The latter two petitions were not published,
but they were filed in the very same proceeding in which the La Mallorca­Pambusco petition was filed, i.
e., PSC Case 64-2365.

The oppositors in PSC Case 64-2365
actually began present­ing their evidence on May 4, 1965 when the counsel for the municipality
of Calatagan,
Batangas, presented his first witness.

On May 10, 1965 the petitioner Beltran, in behalf of the oppositor Project Residents Association, filed an ex
parte motion, which was adopted by the other oppositors, for the auditing and examination of the books
and accounts of the respondents bus operators by the General Auditing Office’
pursuant to section l of Com. Act 325. A similar motion dated May 17, 1965 was filed by the counsel
for the oppositor municipality
of Calatagan,
Batangas. 
Against these motions, the respondents Laguna Tayabas
Bus Co. and Batangas Transportation Co. filed an
opposition on May 24, 1965, upon the grounds that the respondent operators had
already submitted to the Commission their financial statements for the years
1963 and 1964, as well as their income tax returns, and that there were on file
with the Commission copies of their annual reports, to all of which interested
parties may refer for the pur­pose of verifying the respondent operators, true
financial condi­tions.  The same
opposition contended that Com. Act 625 did not impose on the Commission an
obligation to order the audit and examination of the books, records and
accounts of the respondent operators. 
Both motions were denied in an undated order of Com­missioner Guinto who adopted the arguments embodied in the op­position.

On July 27, 1965
a motion for reconsideration of the afore-cited order of denial was filed by
the petitioner Beltran for the oppositor Project
Residents Association, with a prayer that the same be submitted for the resolution
of the Commission en banc.

On October 22, 1965
the Commission, through respondent Commissioner Medina, set the case for
hearing on October 29, 1965
at 900 a. m.

On October 29, 1965
a memorandum was issued by the act­ing Secretary of the Commission, through the
administrative officer thereof, re-assigning the case to respondent
Commissioner Medina.

On November 19, 1965
Commissioner Guinto issued a me­morandum transmitting
the case to the sala of respondent Com­missioner
Medina for continuation of the hearing, upon the ground that it was a rate-case
which properly belonged to the sala of the latter.

On December 8, 1965 Commissioner Medina issued an or­der,
concurred in by Commissioner Tayag, granting
provisional authority to the respondent bus operators and “all operators
who are situated in the same area and are operating under the same
conditions” to increase the bus rates, as follows: (a) minimum charge, for
less than seven (7) kms. P0.15; (b)
basic charge, per kilometer – P0.02; and (c) maximum charge in sub-standard
roads per km. – P0.025, and making the same immediately ef­fective.  Commissioner Gregorio C. Panganiban,
the third mem­ber of the First Division to which respondent Commissioners
Medina and Tayag belonged, dissented on the ground
that no ur­gent need to grant the petition for increase of rates had been shown
on the basis of the evidence presented. 
There were filed several motions to reconsider the foregoing order, one
of which was that filed ex parte by the
petitioners as counsel for the oppositors, Pro­ject
Residents Association and the Confederation of PHHC Housing Residents
Association.

Hearing on the said motions for reconsideration was set for January 17, 1966 at which date,
extensive arguments were raised by the parties, including a manifestation by
the counsel for the respondent operators that the latter were amenable to a re­turn
to the old minimum rate of P0.10 for not more than five kilo­meters.  After the hearing, Commissioner Medina, with
the con­currence of Commissioner Tayag, issued an
order affirming their provisional order of December 8, 1965, with the modification that the minimum
charge for distances of five kilometers or less should be reverted to the
former rate of P0.10. Commissioner Pangani­ban
dissented and voted to return to the old rate until the termina­tion of the
case.

Hence the present petition for certiorari which impugns the
Jurisdiction of the respondent Commissioners, acting as mem­bers of the First
Division, to issue the orders of December
8, 1965 and January 17,
1966, respectively, because:

“(1) Only the
Commission en banc can render a deci­sion in connection with
cases involving the fixing of rates and petitions for reconsideration of orders
or resolutions, as provided by the Public Service Act.

“(2)  Even granting that there was such power the
respondent Commissioners failed to observe a mandatory provision of law, i.e.,
Sec. 1, Com. Act 325, before granting the said provisional increase.

“(3) The First
Division of the Public Service Commission, of which the respondent
Commissioners are members, is not empowered by any law to extend the
provisional authority to increase rates to the bus operators which were not
applicants, because this is contrary to the requirements of the Public Service
Act relative to the fixing of rates only upon proper notice and hearing; and
that consequently, the aforesaid orders are null and void because they
authorized other bus operators which were not applicants to increase their
rates.

“(4) Assuming arguendo that the First Division of the Public
Service Commission had jurisdic­tion over the petitions for provisional authori­ty
to increase rates, the order of December 8, 1965 is arbitrary because it was
immediately implemented contrary to the requirement that within thirty (30)
days, said petition to increase provisionally the rates must be published and
notice given to the affected parties.”

We have carefully leafed through the record of this case and have
been unable to find any indication that the various mo­tions to reconsider the
order dated December 8, 1965
granting provisional authority to the respondent bus operators and others
similarly situated to increase their rates, were
submitted for decision or resolution to the Commission en banc.  Upon the other hand, the record shows that
the order dated December 8, 1965
and the order dated January 17, 1966
denying the motions to re­consider the former order,
were both resolved by a division of three Commissioners, one of whom dissented
from both orders.  The first order,
however, was non-interlocutory because imme­diately executory
pursuant to section 33 of the Public Service Act which provides, inter alia, that –

“… All orders of the Commission to conti­nue an
existing service or prescribing rate to be charged shall be immediately operative;
x x x (emphasis supplied)

Thus, any and all motions to reconsider
the same should have been lodged with and resolved by the Commission en banc
as directed by section 3 of the said Act which states –

“… That any motion for reconsideration of a decision or
non-interlocutory order of any Commissioner or division shall be heard directly
by the Commission en banc and the concurrence of at least four
Commissioners shall be necessary for the promulgation of a final decision or or­der
resolving such motion for reconsideration.”

This Court cannot consider and will not resolve the pre sent
petition to enjoin the enforcement and implementation of two orders of-the
Public Service Commission, one of which was beyond the jurisdiction of a mere
division of three Commissioners to issue. 
This case should be remanded to the Public Service Commission en banc
so that the latter can act on and resolve all the issues raised in the
various motions to reconsider the order dated December 8, 1965, and take such actions as it may see fit
in accordance with law and with the environmental milieu now obtaining.

ACCORDINGLY, let this case be remanded to the Public
Service Commission en banc for further proceedings as herein
indicated. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., concurs in this and in a separate opinion.

Barredo, J., took no part.