OLONGAPO JEEPNEY OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND DIOSDADO BARTOLO, RESPONDENT.

Olongapo Jeepney Operators Association versus Public Service Commission

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Olongapo Jeepney Operators Association against the Public Service Commission and Diosdado Bartolo. The association asks the Supreme Court to set aside a decision of the Commission granting Bartolo a certificate of public convenience to operate two jeepneys on the route from Santa Rita in Olongapo to Magsaysay Drive at the Naval Base gate. The case matters because it fixes a jurisdictional rule every administrative body must respect: when the Commission itself requires that affected operators be given individual notice of a hearing, publication in a newspaper does not take the place of that notice. Notice that comes too late deprives the oppositors of their day in court, and the decision rendered without it is null and void.

Procedural History

Bartolo filed with the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of public convenience. The Commission issued an order dated June 28, 1962, setting the application for hearing on July 30, 1962, and requiring publication and individual notice by mail to the affected operators named in an attached list at least ten days before the hearing. After the hearing, at which the oppositors did not appear and were declared in default, the Commission rendered a decision on November 16, 1962, granting the certificate. The affected operators learned of the decision only in December 1962, upon inquiry at the Motor Vehicles Office. They then filed with the Supreme Court the present petition for review, asking that the decision be set aside for want of the required notice.

Facts

On June 28, 1962, the Public Service Commission issued an order setting Bartolo's application for hearing on July 30, 1962. The order required publication and also required that notice be sent to all affected operators appearing in a list attached to the order, at least ten days before the date of hearing. The order further required the applicant to submit, as proof of compliance, the affidavit of the person who mailed the notices, stating that the mailing was made within the required period. The list contained sixty two names, sixty of whom were residents of Olongapo, Zambales.

The notice was duly published in two newspapers of general circulation on July 5, 1962. The individual notices, however, were sent by registered mail and were posted in Manila only on July 25, 1962. The addressees received them in the first week of August, as shown by the registry return cards, or after the scheduled date of hearing. No affidavit of the person who mailed the notices was ever presented.

On August 6, 1962, the association filed a motion praying for the reopening of the case or the setting aside of the decision, on the ground that public convenience and necessity would no longer be served and that, the jurisdictional requirement of notice not having been complied with, it was deprived of its day in court. Although the receiving section of the Commission stamped its copy of the motion as received, the motion does not appear in the record folder of the case, and no action was taken on it. The records do not reveal what took place on July 30. Evidence for the applicant was received on August 20, 1962, and because no affected operator was present, an order of default was entered against them. On November 16, 1962, the Commission granted Bartolo a certificate to operate two jeepneys. The affected operators were not notified of the decision and learned of it only in December 1962.

Issues

• Whether or not the requirement of individual notice to affected operators, imposed by the Commission's own order, was complied with.
• Whether or not publication of the notice of hearing in newspapers of general circulation may substitute for the individual notices required by the order.
• Whether or not the failure to give the required notice deprived the oppositors of their day in court and rendered the decision null and void.

Applicable Provisions

The order of the Public Service Commission dated June 28, 1962, required notice to the affected operators in these terms:

At least ten (10) days before the date of hearing, and that applicant, during the hearing, shall submit among others, as proof of compliance therewith, the affidavit of the person who mailed said notices, to the effect that the same was made within the required period.

This requirement is the measure of compliance in the case, and the record shows it was not met.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the requirement of notice was not complied with. The order of June 28, 1962 specifically required that notices be sent to the persons named in the list at least ten days before the hearing scheduled for July 30, 1962. The registry receipts submitted as part of the applicant's evidence show that the mails were posted in Manila only on July 25, 1962. Considering that the notices were sent by registered mail and the addressees were in Zambales, it was almost certain that they would not receive them before July 30, and in fact they did not. The Court also noted that the order required the affidavit of the person who posted the notices, attesting that mailing was made at least ten days before the hearing, and no such affidavit was presented. Despite these deficiencies, the application was approved.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the contention that publication in two newspapers of general circulation in Zambales was notice to the whole world. The order required, in addition to publication, individual notice to the operators affected whose names appeared in the attached list. The requirement, therefore, is not in the alternative but conjunctive. The Court held that this requirement, imposed by the Commission itself in connection with an application for a certificate of public convenience, is within the power of the Commission to impose.

On the third issue, the Court held that the inadequate notification to the interested parties, which resulted in the oppositors' failure to be present during the hearing, deprived them of their day in court. The decision rendered in disregard of that right is, consequently, null and void.

Doctrine

A requirement of notice imposed by the Public Service Commission in its own order, in addition to publication, is conjunctive and not alternative. Publication in a newspaper of general circulation does not excuse the sending of individual notices to the affected operators named in the order. Where the required notices are mailed so late that the addressees cannot receive them before the hearing, and the required affidavit of mailing is not submitted, the requirement is not satisfied. Notice is jurisdictional in this sense: oppositors who are not given the required notice are deprived of their day in court, and the decision rendered without it is null and void. The Commission has the power to impose such a requirement, and it must exact compliance with it before acting on the application.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission in the case and remanded it to the Commission for further proper proceedings, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that publication is not a substitute for the individual notices the Commission itself required, because the requirement is conjunctive, not alternative. Examiners use this case on administrative due process and jurisdiction, whenever late mailing of notices and a default order combine to deprive oppositors of their day in court.