AGUSTIN O. CASENAS, PETITIONER, VS. DIONISIO CABIGUEN, RESPONDENT.

Casenas versus Cabiguen

The Case

This is Casenas versus Cabiguen, a petition for review of a decision of the Public Service Commission granting a certificate of public convenience. Agustin Casenas, an existing operator, opposed the application of Dionisio Cabiguen to run additional transportation service on two lines in Palawan. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of the deference the Supreme Court gives to the factual findings of the Public Service Commission, and it is a cautionary tale on the strict rules of appeal, because the petition was dismissed as filed out of time even before the Court reached the merits.

Procedural History

Cabiguen filed his application for a certificate of public convenience with the Public Service Commission. The Commission delegated the taking of depositions to the Justice of the Peace of Puerto Princesa. After the depositions were taken and the parties submitted their evidence, the Commission rendered judgment approving the application. Casenas moved for reconsideration, which was denied. He then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the Commission never resolved and which was later deemed withdrawn for lack of quorum. Casenas then brought this petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On December 14, 1956, Dionisio Cabiguen applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate transportation service on the Puerto Princesa to Babuyan and Puerto Princesa to Panacan runs, with three units on each line. Agustin Casenas opposed the application. He claimed he had long been servicing those lines under a duly issued certificate, that his service was efficient and satisfactory, and that if additional service were needed, he as the old operator should be given preference, since granting the application to a new applicant would only bring ruinous competition.

The Commission delegated the taking of depositions to the Justice of the Peace of Puerto Princesa, with a deadline that was extended more than once. After several postponements sought by Casenas, the Justice of the Peace set the depositions for the last time on April 26, 27 and 29, 1957. Casenas asked that they be moved to April 22, but Cabiguen opposed this because his own counsel would be in Manila, and the request was denied. Casenas then asked the Commission for an extension and asked the Justice of the Peace to reset the depositions to May 20. Neither motion was resolved. On April 26, neither Casenas nor his counsel appeared; counsel merely sent a telegram asking for postponement, and the telegram never reached the court.

The depositions proceeded in their absence, and Cabiguen presented testimonial and documentary evidence of the need for the service and of his financial capacity. Casenas later asked the Commission to set aside the depositions, but this was denied. The Commission did allow him to present his own evidence in opposition, which he did. The Commission then approved the application, finding that a lone operator with ten old trucks could not meet the needs of a progressive province, and that competition, if any, would be more than compensated by better service to the public. Casenas moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which was deemed withdrawn. He filed this petition on June 1, 1962.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for review was filed within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the second motion for reconsideration suspended the period to appeal.
• Whether or not the findings of the Public Service Commission on the need for the service and the applicant's financial capacity may be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the taking of depositions in the absence of the petitioner and his counsel deprived them of their day in court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision turns on the settled rule that findings of fact of the Public Service Commission are conclusive on the Supreme Court, which the Court states as follows:

These matters are factual, and We have consistently held that findings and conclusions of the PSC on such matters are conclusive and binding to this Court.

This rule bears directly on the case because the petitioner's assigned errors raised only questions of fact, which the Court refused to review.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was filed outside the reglementary period. Casenas received the Commission's decision on June 25, 1958, and filed his first motion for reconsideration exactly fifteen days later. That motion was denied, and he received the denial on January 26, 1960. He filed a second motion on January 29, 1960, but waited until June 1, 1962, almost one year and six months later, to file this petition.

On the second issue, the Court held that the second motion did not suspend the period to appeal. The Court gave two reasons:

First, because no leave to file a second motion had been asked and/or granted by the Commission. Second, because the said second motion is pro forma.

On this ground alone, the Court said, the petition should be dismissed.

On the third issue, the Court nevertheless examined the assigned errors for the petitioner's benefit. It held that the errors raised only factual questions, namely whether there was need for the service and whether the respondent was financially capable. The Court held that the Commission's findings on these matters were based on documentary and substantial testimonial evidence and should not be disturbed.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the claim of procedural irregularity. The petitioner and his counsel had been advised of the hearings and had ample time to prepare, and they were in fact allowed to present their evidence, which the Commission considered in deciding the case.

Doctrine

Three rules must be retained. First, the findings of fact and conclusions of the Public Service Commission on matters within its competence, such as the need for the service and the applicant's financial capacity, are conclusive and binding on the Supreme Court and will not be disturbed where supported by substantial evidence. Second, a second motion for reconsideration does not suspend the period to appeal unless leave to file it was first asked and granted, and a second motion that merely repeats the grounds of the first is pro forma and does not toll the period. Third, the right to a day in court is not denied where the party was duly notified of the hearings and was given the opportunity to present evidence, even if he failed to appear.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission, with costs against the petitioner in both instances. Cabiguen won.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a pro forma second motion for reconsideration does not suspend the period to appeal, and the findings of fact of the Public Service Commission are conclusive on the Supreme Court. Examiners use this case in remedial law on the reglementary period and pro forma motions, and in administrative law on the conclusiveness of the findings of quasi-judicial bodies.