CLEMENTE M. SORIANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ENRIQUE MEDINA AS COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative case filed on May 6, 1965 by Atty. Clemente
M. Soriano, as lawyer for Tita
C. Bayhon charging Hon. Enrique Medina, Public
Service Commissioner,*
with:  (1) serious misconduct thru
falsification of public documents; (2) serious misconduct and inefficiency thru
gross ignorance of the law, partiality and
corrupt practices; and (3) serious misconduct thru corrupt practices.

Respondent Commissioner filed his answer on June 15, 1965, after which the case was assigned to Hon. Juan P.
Enriquez, Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report
and recommendation.

On February
2, 1966 Justice Enriquez submitted to this Court his
report, the pertinent portions of which read:

“1.  In support of the first charge, complainant
has established that on June 1, 1962 respondent was nominated by the President
of the Philippines to the
position of Commissioner of Public Service Commission.  In connection therewith, the Commission on
Appointments required respondent to
accomplish and submit to it an
information sheet, which the re­spondent did under oath on May 6, 1963 at Manila, Exhibit A.  Question No. 4 of Exhibit
A reads, ‘Record of court and/or administrative
case against you if there is any;
status of the same.’  No criminal nor
administrative case is pending against
him.’  It, however, appears that on December 17, 1956, a decision was rendered by the municipal court of Dumaguete
against respondent for slight physical injuries committed by respondent against
his wife, imposing upon him P50.00 fine, Exhibit B.  Respondent proferred
the explanation that he understood the question to refer to unfinished cases in 1963, and so his answer
refers to pending cases only; and that there was no intention to evade the
question.

Under the facts, the offense charged has not been established.

2.  The evidence shows that by virtue of a
provisional permit issued on October
27, 1964, applicant Tita C. Bayhon started operation of five units of PU cars sometime
in November, 1964.  However, on December 7, 1964, Rodrigo Lim wired re­spondent
Commissioner a complaint charging Bayhon with
collecting fare by distance instead of per hour, in not issuing stub receipt
and without being provided with BIR and municipal licenses and requesting
suspension of her provisional permit. 
Respondent referred the telegram to the Chief, Transportation Division,
for ‘possible action’.  On December 10, respondent instructed by
telegram PSC inspector Leoncio Paredes
in Cagayan de Oro to
investigate the charges and on December 14, Paredes
wired back that according to operator
Bayhon and her men they were charging per person, al­though he has
‘personal knowledge that all PU operators in the city of Cagayan
de Oro, are charging P2.00 per head from the city of Cagayan de Oro proper to the airport and vice-versa, a distance of more than twelve (12)
kilometers’, that is, P2.00 per head per twelve kilometers covered in fifteen
(15) minutes, thus overcharging the public four times the authorized fare. 
More­over, in proceedings
before the City Fiscal held on
December 3, 1964, operator Bayhon admitted
operating without issuing receipt to passengers, operating in violation of city ordinances and operating without
painting the authorized rates on the wind­shield of the vehicles, pleading
however that she had just started operation with the promise to correct the deficiencies pointed out above, respondent suspended Bayhon’s operation
on December 18, 1964 ordering her at the same time to ‘show cause why her
certificate of public con­venience (issued December 15, 1964) should not be
cancelled’.  On January
4, 1965, Bayhon presented a motion for reconsidera­tion directed to the PSC en banc, and after hearing the PSC en banc issued on January
18, 1964 an order
maintaining the order of suspension, setting aside the decision granting Tita Bayhon authority to operate and ordering a new trial of
the case.  During the hearing of this
administrative case, the case of Bayhon appears to be still pending action.

On the other hand, Bayhon wired respondent
on December 10, 1964 requesting
immediate investigation of Rodrigo Lim’s taxicab for being dilapidated and operated with
tampered meters and without toplights and color
scheme, Exhibit D.  On January 8, 1965, Bayhon filed a
formal complaint thereon and pressed her demand for immediate investigation, enclosing therewith photographs of Lim’s taxicabs,
Exhibit E.  Upon respondent’s telegraphic
order of December 18, 1964, Leoncio Paredes, PSC inspector, investigated the charges against
Lim and found them to be true and correct on January 28, 1965, Exhibits G and
L. So on January 29, 1965, Paredes filed
with the PSC seven (7) verified complaints against public convenience granted
same operator.  Confirmation of the
charges is contained in the letter of February 2, 1965 of acting registrar Felizardo E. Factura, Exhibit H,
his certificate of August 13, 1965, Exhibits R and R-1, letter of PSC inspector
Jesus V. Agana, March 31, 1965, Exhibit 5, respondent’s order of April 5, 1965,
Exhibit M, and by herein complainant as
late as August 12, 1965, Exhibits P and Q.

Examination of the evidence
will show that the alleged disregard of Section 16 (n) of the Public
Service Law has not been shown. 
Respondent’s suspension of Bayhon’s operation
is based on the report of PSC inspector Paredes and the
very admissions of Bayhon, which up to now have not
been denied nor explained away.  At any
rate, the order of the PSC en banc of January 18, 1965 confirmed respondent’s order of December 18, 1964, thus purging it
of whatever technical defect it may have suffered from.

x x
x              x
x x                 x x x

3.  On September
4, 1964 the Public Service Commission in a decision penned by
respondent granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Juan Sierra to operate 30 units of taxicabs
in the metropolitan area, Annex 27.  Juan
Sierra’s wife is the sister of the wife of Angel Medina, brother of respondent
and who
was a witness at the hearing on the application and subsequently appointed
manager of the taxicabs operated by Sierra.

In his defense respondent alleges that the decision, Annex 27, was
based on the overwhelming evidence of financial competence and qualifications
of Juan Sierra and after proper delibera­tion; that he did not advise Paredes to go slow with respect to Rodrigo Lim because the
latter is his compadre, since no such relationship ever existed be­tween them.

Complainant
charges respondent with a violation of Section 3(d) of Republic Act 3019, which
reads: ‘Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment
in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof, or within one year after its
termination.’  While a certificate of
public convenience was granted to Juan Sierra while respondent is Commissioner of PSC and that
respondent’s brother who is Sierra’s brother-in-law became manager of Sierra’s
taxicab business, there is no showing that respondent had his brother accept
such employment.  If he was so employed, it must be because of
the relationship existing between the brothers-in-law, with which respondent
has nothing to do.”

While recommending respondent’s exoneration on two counts the
investigator found him guilty of partiality and recommended that a reprimand
with admonition be ad­ministered, on the ground that despite the findings of
two PSC inspectors and the MVO registrar, the operation of Lim’s taxicabs was
not suspended, in contrast to the action taken by respondent in connection with
Lim’s complaint against Tita Bayhon.  There was, apparently, a difference in the treatment awarded the two operators.  They mutually charged each other, but
suspension was meted out to only one.  It
must be noted, however, that Tita Bayhon’s operation of her
PU cars was pursuant to a provisional permit issued by
the Commission in its order dated October
27, 1964 (Exh. S). 
Violations of some of the terms and conditions of said provisional
permit were admitted by her in her testimony during the investigation conducted
by Fiscal Pantaleon de la Peña
(Annex 8) and confirmed by the letter-report of inspector Leoncio
Paredes (Annex 6). 
Said provisional permit pro­vides, among other things, that “the
first violation of these prohibitions, duly proven, shall be
sufficient cause for the cancellation of this provisional permit”; that
“the provisional permit hereby granted may be cancelled or revoked by the
Commission at anytime”; and that “failure of the applicant to comply
with any of the foregoing re­quirements will be considered cause for this
Commission to withdraw the authority herein granted.”

In fact, the order of suspension was, upon the filing of a motion
for reconsideration by counsel for Tita Bayhon, submitted to the Commission en banc,
which, on January 18, 1965,
after hearing, denied the said motion.

On the other hand, Rodrigo Lim was the holder of a regular
certificate of public convenience, and he denied the charges against him.  Although it is true that two PSC inspectors
and the MVO registrar reported that violations had been committed by Lim, the
Commission has no power, except in specified instances, to suspend or revoke
the certificate of public convenience without proper notice and hearing.  The Public Service Act provides:

“SEC. 16.  Proceedings
of the Commission, upon notice and hearing.- The Commission shall have the
power, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the rules and
provisions of this Act, subject to the limitations and exceptions mentioned and
saving provisions to the contrary:

x x x              x x x                 x x x

(n)    To suspend or revoke any certi­ficate issued
under the provisions of this Act whenever the holder thereof has violated or
willfully and contumaciously refused to comply with any order, rule or regulation of the Commission or
any provision of this Act: Provided, That the Commission, for good cause, may,
prior to the hearing suspend for a period not to exceed thirty days any certificate or the
exercise of any right or authority issued or granted under this Act by order of the Commission, whenever
such step shall in the judg­ment of the Commission be necessary to avoid
serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience to the public or to private
interests.”

The non-suspension of Lim’s operation before notice and hearing
does not necessarily show partiality on the part of respondent.  The requirement of notice and hearing may be
dispensed with only when in the opinion of the Commission the remedy of suspension
before hearing is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience
to the public or to private interests. 
This consideration obviously contemplates the exercise of sound
discretion.

The record shows that after receipt of the telegram-complaint of Tita Bayhon, dated December 10, 1964, respondent, on
December 18, directed inspector Leoncio Paredes to investigate the operation of Rodrigo Lim and to submit his report and
recommendation immediately (Annex 14). 
However, due to Lim’s protest against the arbitrariness and partiality
of Paredes, respondent designated Atty. Dionisio Eltanal, special
assistant of the Commission, to investigate said protest and, later on, the
complaint of Bayhon against Lim (Annexes 18 and 19).

Meanwhile, on January 29, 1965 Paredes filed seven (7) identical complaints filed against
Lim, in effect relinquishing his role as investigator for the Com­mission.  These complaints were brought to respondent’s
attention only on May 17, 1965.  On the same date respondent referred them to
the Chief of the Complaints and Enforcement Section for appropriate action and
required the receiving clerk to explain why the said complaints had not been
brought to his attention earlier (Annex
21).  Anyway they were calendared for hearing on June 30, 1965, but upon motion of Paredes
the hearing was postponed to July 12,
1965 (Annex
25).  However, before that date the
instant administrative case was filed against respondent, whereupon he in­hibited himself from hearing the complaints
and as­signed them instead to Associate Commissioner Josias
K. Guinto, who in turn re-assigned them, for certain
personal reasons, to Commissioner Alex F. de Guzman.  Commissioner de Guzman, on his part, ran for
Congress on November 9, 1965 and hence was not able to conduct the
investigation.  The cases were then
reassigned to Commissioner Sunga, but on the date of
hearing Paredes did not appear despite notice to him
and so on motion of Lim’s counsel the cases were dismissed for lack of
interest.

In view of all the
foregoing, this Court finds that
the charges against respondent have not been substantiated and accordingly resolves
to dismiss the same.

Dizon, Zaldivar,
Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Barredo, Villamor,
and Makasiar,
JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on leave.

Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., and
Teehankee, J., no
part.

* Commissioner Medina is now
retired from the service.