PEDRO VIDAL AND DAVID BAETIONG, PETITIONERS, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Vidal versus Baetiong

The Case

This is Vidal versus Baetiong, a petition for review brought by Pedro Vidal and David Baetiong against the Public Service Commission. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's refusal to approve the sale and transfer of a certificate of public convenience, and its refusal to reopen the case on the strength of documents said to prove that the certificate existed. The case matters because it fixes a working rule on the weight of a certified true copy against the official records of a public office, and because it reminds us that a franchise is a grant that must actually exist before it can be sold.

Procedural History

Pedro Vidal and David Baetiong filed a joint application with the Public Service Commission for approval of the sale and transfer of a certificate of public convenience. The Commission, through Associate Commissioner Antonio Aspillera, provisionally approved the sale and transfer for the duration of the application's pendency, subject to revocation or modification at any time. After hearing, the Commission dismissed the application and set aside the provisional approval, and it ordered the plates of the five jeepneys covered by the sale confiscated immediately. The applicants moved for reconsideration, and later filed an amended and supplemental motion asking for a new hearing to present documents allegedly discovered. The Commission en banc denied the motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review. The petition was at first dismissed for failure to file the petitioners' brief, but the Court later allowed further time, the brief was filed, and the case was decided on the merits.

Facts

On May 16, 1961, Pedro Vidal executed a deed of sale in favor of David Baetiong, purporting to sell and transfer a certificate of public convenience allegedly granted to Vidal by the Public Service Commission in a particular case, together with several jeepneys, for 7,000 pesos. On June 2, 1961, both men filed an application with the Commission for approval of the sale and transfer. On June 6, 1961, Commissioner Aspillera issued an order provisionally approving the sale and transfer for the duration of the application's pendency, subject to revocation or modification at any time.

After hearing, on November 29, 1961, the Commission dismissed the application and set aside the provisional approval. Its ground was that neither the statistics records nor the records of the Transportation Division showed that the certificate of public convenience had been issued to Vidal in that case. The plates of the five jeepneys covered by the sale were ordered immediately confiscated. The applicants moved for reconsideration, praying for a formal inquiry and asking that there be no immediate confiscation until the persons responsible for the fraud were known. Later they filed an amended and supplemental motion asking that the order be set aside, that the confiscated plates be returned, and that a new hearing be held to allow the presentation of documents allegedly discovered.

The documents offered were three: a certified true copy of a decision of the Commission in the alleged case, penned by Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo and dated December 12, 1955, granting the certificate in Vidal's favor; a certified true copy of an order dated May 29, 1961 issued by Commissioner Aspillera allowing the substitution of five jitneys in another case for the five jitneys in the alleged case; and a certification that the orders in Vidal's favor in two other cases had been recorded in the statistics section of the Commission. The Commission en banc denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that despite diligent search no record of a certificate awarded to Vidal in that case could be found, that not even the docket reflecting the proceedings held showed it, that no statistical record appeared, and that no time schedule had been prepared and approved for the franchise. These facts were sworn to by the respective personnel in charge.

Issues

• Whether or not the Public Service Commission should have ruled, on the basis of the newly offered documents, that a certificate of public convenience was in fact issued in Vidal's favor.
• Whether or not the Commission erred in denying a new trial for the presentation of the certified true copy of the alleged decision.
• Whether or not the provisional approval of the sale and transfer, and its recording, established that a certificate had really been granted to Vidal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statute or rule. It rests on the settled administrative rule that the official records of the Commission, attested to by their custodians, are the primary evidence of what the Commission has granted, and that a certified true copy of an alleged decision cannot prevail over those records unless they are shown to be defective or incomplete. The Court states the governing principle in its own words:

Such certified true copy cannot prevail over the records of the Public Service Commission unless it is shown that the latter's records are defective or incomplete, which is not the case.

This principle bears on the case because the petitioners' entire claim to a franchise rested on that certified true copy, and the Commission's own records showed no such grant.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not err. Against the state of the record attested to by the custodians, the petitioners relied on a certified true copy of an alleged decision granting a franchise in Vidal's favor. The Court found that the plainly arising fact was that the so-called certified true copy was fraudulently made, that there was in fact no such decision, and that the applicants had presented nothing convincing to show that a decision was really promulgated. The Commission was therefore not in error in refusing to rely on a mere certified true copy in the absence of anything in its records and in the absence of competent proof that the decision was actually rendered.

On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission did not err in denying a new trial for the presentation of that certified true copy, for the same reason: the copy could not overcome the official records, and no competent proof supported the alleged decision.

On the third issue, the Court held that the provisional approval did not help the petitioners. By its terms it could be revoked at any time and was intended to last only during the pendency of the application, so the fact of its grant and recording did not affect the question of whether a certificate was really given to Vidal. Moreover, even the provisional approval was found to have been granted because of forgeries in the initials of the personnel who recommended action on it, and so it was properly revoked. As to the alleged injustice to the buyer, the Court answered that the vendee may proceed against his vendor for recovery, and the vendor may go against the persons responsible for the fraud. The point in the suit was simply that there was no record of a certificate granted to Vidal, and therefore the sale to Baetiong could not be approved and the vehicles could not be allowed to operate under a non-existing franchise.

Doctrine

A certificate of public convenience is a grant that must actually exist in the official records of the Public Service Commission before it can be the subject of an approved sale and transfer. A certified true copy of an alleged decision of the Commission cannot prevail over the Commission's own records, attested to by their custodians, unless it is first shown that those records are defective or incomplete. A provisional approval of a sale and transfer is by its nature revocable at any time and lasts only during the pendency of the application, so it creates no vested right and does not prove that the franchise exists. And a buyer who takes under a franchise that does not exist must look to his vendor, and the vendor to the persons responsible for the fraud, for the remedy lies in an action for recovery, not in compelling the Commission to approve a sale of something that was never granted.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed orders of the Public Service Commission, with costs, so the petitioners lost and the dismissal of their application and the confiscation of the plates stood.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a certified true copy cannot prevail over the official records of the Commission unless those records are shown to be defective or incomplete. Examiners use this case on the nature of a certificate of public convenience as a grant that must exist in fact, on the revocable character of a provisional approval, and on the remedies of a buyer defrauded in the sale of a non-existent franchise.