MIGUEL M. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RICARDO SILVERIO, ALEX F. DE GUZMAN, ROGELIO MANALO, ESTELLA SERAFICA, FRANCISCO OLALIA, DOLORES VERGARA, LOREN…

The procedural due process objection was the basis for this certiorari
proceeding with preliminary injunction. 
Petitioner alleged that without the hearing required, the amendment
sought, which was considered as uncontested, as granted by respondent Public
Service Commission.  Thus the private
respondents therein named^[1]
were allowed “to operate their taxicabs within the City of Manila and
Suburbs and from said place to any point in the Island of Luzon accessible to
motor vehicles and vice versa, but not to exceed a total of six hundred (600)
taxicab units to be apportioned to the petitioners.”^[2]
There was, in addition, a second cause of action based on the same ground that
a proposal by a second group of private respondents^[3]
to convert a certificate of public convenience provin­cial taxicab services
into Manila and suburbs and that notwithstanding the reservation on the part of
a special counsel from the Department of Justice who reserved his right to file
an opposition in behalf of the public with the hearing being postponed so that
the case could be heard jointly with the earlier application that gave rise to
the first cause of action “without any notice to petitioner, and to other
oppositors, of any hearing subsequent to July 16, 1969, respondent Public
Service Commission, thru Commissioner Enrique Medina, on July 29 1969,
rendered a decision stating:  ‘At the
hearing of the petition, only the Association of Taxicab Operators of Manila
and Suburbs, Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., International Transportation Co.,
Inc., Rosario C. Vda. de Monserrat and Enrique C. Monserrat, Jr. appeared at
said hearing through counsel.  However,
at the last hearing, Atty. Rodolfo M. Medina withdrew the opposition in behalf
of his clients, while the others did not appear to contest this petition.  With respect to the opposition of Ildefonso
Tambunting, it appears that it was filed out
of time that no copy of said opposition was furnished herein petitioners; and, that
not even he nor his counsel was present when the case was called for
hearing.  With their withdrawal and
the absence and manifest lack of interest of the other oppositors, this
petition is there­fore considered as uncontested.’ and provides in its dispositive
part, thus:  ‘In view of the foregoing
consi­derations this Commission finds that there is a public need for
the regular operation of additional taxi units in the Greater Manila area; that
the grant of this petition will meet this public need; that the grant will not
pre­judice the riding public, but will on the contrary, best promote and
protect public convenience and interest. 
Consequently, the instant petition maybe, as it hereby [Granted].'”^[4]
It was admitted by petitioner that motions for reconsideration were filed with
reference to the above assailed decision.^[5]
It is further the submission of petitioner that instead of the matter being
uncontested, there was insistence on his part to adduce evidence to the claim
of public respondent that there was no such necessity for the amendment and the
conversion of the certificates of public convenience.

The Court by resolution
required respondents to file an answer to the petition and further issued a
temporary restraining order.  In the
answer filed by the principal private respondent Ricardo Silverio, it was
stressed that instead of coming directly to this Court by this certiorari
proceeding, the appropriate remedy would have been one of appeal.  It was likewise pointed out that on the
merits, there was no question that the action taken by respondent Public
Service Commission through the then Commissioner Josue Cadiao could not be
considered as a denial of procedural due process as there was default on the
part of petitioner Mendoza.  Mention was
likewise made that the Association of Taxicab Operators in Manila and Suburbs
withdrew their opposition as well as other oppositors.  There was subsequently an amended petition,
but reference was only made to petitioner withdrawing his motion for recon­sideration
as he sought direct relief to the Supreme Court and that there was a subsequent
amendment by the same Commissioner Cadiao in effect granting authority to
seventeen private respondents to operate 306 units of their taxicabs in
addition to the 640 units originally granted, again without any previous
hearing or notice thereof.  There was
then clearly a significant legal question raised, this on the assumption that
the facts would demonstrate that the claim of petitioner was meritorious.  Under such circumstances, the admission by
petitioner that there was a motion for reconsideration, which ordinarily would
suffice to constitute a defense to a procedural due process objection, was not
deemed decisive.  What was considered by
this Court as deserving of further attention and scrutiny was the practice
followed by respondent Commission that could, and as petitioner pointed out,
did result in a party not being given the opportunity to be heard.  That could be viewed as an improvident
exercise of authority, stigmatized, and correctly so, as violative of the due
process clause.^[6] The parties were duly heard, memoranda
submitted, and the case then submitted for decision.  There is, however, no need for ruling on the
question raised.  Soon after, martial law
was declared.  Under a Presidential
Decree issued less than four months later, the Public Service Commission was
abolished.^[7] It created a Board of Trans­portation in its
place.  Since then, this governmental
agency has been entrusted with the functions formerly pertaining to the defunct
respondent Commission.  No use­ful purpose would thus be served by a decision on the merits.

WHEREFORE, this case is dismissed for being moot and
academic.  No costs.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
The private respondents are:  Ricardo
Silverio, Rogelio Manalo, Estella Serafica, Francisco Olalia, Dolores Vergara,
Lorenzo Yosuico, Faustino Canchela, Felisa Tolen­tino, Angel Malabanan, Eduardo
Flaminiano, Guadalupe Vergara, Genoveva Oñate, Caridad dela Cruz, Petronilo
Echevaria, Marciano Mauricio, Patrocinio Lorenzo, Amparo Lomuntad, E. Renolayan
& Josefina Tarosa, Rizal Taxi Corp., Cesar Rodriguez, Lexington Layug,
Milagros Paraiso, Estella Mendoza, Jojo Taxi, Inc., Teresita Afan, Eliseo Siopongo,
Antonio Vide, Teodoro Rongo, Severa Gregorio, Eduardo Tuason, Pedro Estela,
Carmelo Valera, Cristina de la Cruz, Lilia Villareal, Adelaida Olalia, Julia
Manego, Cristino Quimpo, Elias Mendez, Elena Reyes, Generoso Gerundio and
Mariquita Vergara.

^[2]
Petition, par. 11, Annex O. Par. 17 of the petition reads as follows:  “That on October 21, 1969, an order
dated August 6, 1969, signed by Commissioner Cadiao, was filed with the
Secretary of the Commission, approving an alleged application of one Alex F. de
Guzman for the con­version of his 40 units of taxicabs from ‘provincial’ to
‘city’ thus, transferring the base of operations of said taxicabs from Malabon,
Rizal, to the City of Manila, when said Alex de Guzman is not an original
applicant in Case No. 69-2926, and which amounted to an amendment of the
decision, without any previous hearing, nor notice there­of, copy of said order
is attached here­to as Annex ‘X’.”

^[3]
The second group of private respondents
are:  Alberto Alonso, Petronila Zafra,
Loida Cajucom, Jaime D. Reyes, Maura Mendoza, Asuncion Castro, Ragang Trans­portation
Co., Inc., Embee Transportation Co., Inc. and Jojo, Incorporated (Velvet
Taxicab, Inc.).

^[4]
Ibid, par. 24, Annex DD.

^[5]
Ibid, pars. 12, 15, 29 and 30.

^[6]
Cf. Morrero v. Bocar, 66 Phil.
429 (1938).

^[7]
Presidential Decree No. 101 (1973). Cf.
Arrow Transportation Corporation v. Board of Transportation, L-39655, March 21, 1975, 63 SCRA 193.