MARINDUQUE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND THE ESTATE OP ESCOLASTICA LECAROZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AUGUSTO S. AREVALO AND ANGEL AREVALO, RESPONDENTS.

The sole question raised in the present appeal is whether
petitioners (oppositors below) have been deprived of their
day in court and of their right to present their evidence.
The record discloses that respondents Augusto S. Arevalo and Angel Arevalo, filed an application for the
issuance of a certificate of public convenience to operate
7 jitneys for the transportation of passenger and freight
on the line Buenavista-Balacanan via Casan and Boac in
Marinduque. In the hearing of July 27, 1960, before a
hearing officer of the respondent commission, opposition
to said application was filed by herein petitioners. In the
course of said hearing, upon motion by counsel for the
respondents and without objection of counsel for petitioners, the hearing officer ruled in the following tenor:

“On
motion of counsel for applicants, and no objection having been
interposed by counsel for oppositors Estate of Escolastica Lecaroz and
Marinduque Transportation Co., Inc., let an order be issued
commissioning the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista, Marinduque to
receive the depositions of the parties and their witnesses.”

Thereupon an order in mimeographed form and signed
by an associate Commissioner was issued on July 27, 1960,
commissioning said Justice of the Peace to “receive on
such date or dates as he may designate but not later than
September 27, 1960, the testimony of such witnesses as
the applicant and oppositors in the aforesaid case may
desire to present * * *”

Accordingly,
on August 22, 1960, respondents presented before the Justice of the
Peace of Buenavista their testimonies and those of their witnesses,
together with their documentary evidence. After the respondents rested
their case, counsel for petitioners manifested that he had no witnesses
at the time because said deposition had been made at the request of the
respondents themselves and that he had only submitted to their request.
Counsel for respondents, however, argued that the order of the
Commission authorized the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista to receive
the testimonies of such witnesses as the applicant and oppositors may
desire. To this, counsel for petitioners replied that in the
mimeographed form of the order to take deposition the word “oppositors”
is generally included even without the oppositor requesting for the
same. At any rate, counsel for petitioners manifested that he was going
to file a formal motion to dismiss before presenting his evidence.

Almost a month thereafter—and petitioners having
neither filed their motion to dismiss nor presented the deposition of their witnesses—respondents on September 14,
1960 filed with the Commission a manifestation in which,
among others, they prayed that “the case be considered
uncontested and that the Commission render its decision
on the strength of the evidence already presented by applicants.” Subsequently, on September 21, 1960, respondents
applied for a provisional permit to operate the jitney line.

To
the above motion and manifestation, petitioners replied on September
27, 1960, that they did not agree to the taking of the depositions of
their own witnesses nor to the termination of the hearing of the case
at Buenavista, Marinduque, because their witnesses resided in Manila
and were going to testify before the Commission there; that if the
presentation of the motion to dismiss was delayed, it was because to
date they had not received the notice from the Justice of the Peace of
Buenavista, Marinduque of the filing of the depositions with the
Commission, as required by Sec. 21, Rule 18^[1] of the Rules of
Court, and upon which deposition the motion to dismiss
was to be based. Petitioners then prayed that the Commission grant them at least ten (10) days within which
to submit the motion to dismiss, the period to be computed from the time they shall have received said notice
from the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista.

The Commission took no action on this motion of petitioners, but instead, and notwithstanding the manifestations of the petitioners, it issued on October 4, 1960 an
order in the following language:

“The records shows that on motion of counsel for applicants and without
objection of counsel for oppositors Estate of Escolastica Lecaroz and
Marinduque Transportation Co., Inc., the Commission issued an order on
July 27. 1960 authorizing the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista to
take the depositions of such witnesses as the applicants and oppositors
may desire to present not later than September 27, 1960; that pursuant
to said order, applicants on August 27, 1960 (August 22) presented
their testimonies and those of 2 other witnesses together with their
documentary evidence after which they rested their case; that in the
deposition proceedings counsel for oppositors had neither” filed said
motion to dismiss nor presented the depositions of their witnesses. In view
thereof, and it appearing prima facie from the depositions taken and
filed that there is an urgent public need for the operation of a direct
services line applied for * * *, the Commission, believes that
applicants way be as there (they) are hereby granted a provisional
permit to operate 2 jitneys on the line. * * *.” (Italics supplied).

The Commission on the same day, October 4, 1960, also
issued another order which reads as follows:

“For the purpose of giving oppositors another opportunity to present
the deposition of their witnesses and for applicants to present the
depositions of rebuttal witnesses, if any, the authority given to the
Justice of the Peace of Buenavista, Marinduque, to take the deposition
of the witnesses in this case is hereby extended to December 5, 1960,
with the warning to the parties that no further extension will be
allowed unless for good cause shown.”

In view of this order, petitioners, on November 17, 1960
filed another motion dated November 17, 1960, although
received by the Commission on November 22, 1960, reiterating” that since some of their witnesses were residing
in Manila and the rest at Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, and
that it would be most inconvenient and expensive for those
residing in Manila to go to Marinduque to make their depositions there, petitioners be permitted to present these
witnesses before the Commission itself and praying that
a date be set for this purpose, and that the Commission
authorizes the Justice of the Peace of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, instead of Buenavista, to take the deposition of their
witnesses residing thereat. Once again, no action was
taken by the respondent Commission on this motion.

Meantime the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista, pursuant to the
extension of his authority to take depositions, sent to the parties
that the depositions of petitioners witnesses was to be made on
November 28, 1960. Both parties asked for postponement, the respondent
applicants, on November 21, 1960, on the ground counsel had two
hearings before the Public Service Commission on the date scheduled for
the deposition, and the petitioners, on November 22, 1960, asking the
Justice of the Peace to hold in abeyance the taking of the depositions
pending resolution by the Commission of their motion of the same date
requesting for the deposition of their witnesses to be taken in Manila
and Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. Accordingly, the
deposition proceedings in Buenavista were suspended.

All this time, the Commission did not take action on
petitioners’ previous motions, and petitioners in the meantime could not present their evidence in the case. Finally,
respondents on January 16, 1961 filed a petition with the
Commission asking that petitioners he declared guilty of
laches. To this petition, petitioners replied that they could
not be declared guilty of laches because the Commission
up to then had not determined their motion to allow them
to present witnesses in Manila and Sta. Cruz, Marinduque.

The
record reveals that from November 22, 1960, the date of the filing of
the motion above referred to, up to April 13, 1961, the date of the
promulgation of the decision in question, the respondent Commission did
not act on petitioners motion. On April 13, 1961, respondent Commission
rendered a decision granting the respondents the certificate of public
convenience to operate the jitney lines. It was only in the said
decision that respondent Commission denied petitioners motion to
present witnesses in Manila and Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. The pertinent
portion
of the decision is as follows:

” * * *
the Commission issued another order dated October 4, 1960 extending the
authority of the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista to take the
depositions of witnesses up to December 5, 1960, with the warning to
the parties that no further extension will be allowed unless for good
cause shown.

“Oppositors
again did not take this further opportunity to adduce evidence thru
depositions. Instead on November 22, I960, when the extension period
for the taking of depositions was about to expire, oppositors filed a
motion dated November 17, 1960, asking ‘that a date be set for the
hearing of the case before this Commission for the reception of the
testimony of oppositors;’ witnesses who are residing here in Manila,
and thereafter the Justice of the Peace of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque (not
Buenavista) be commissioned to take the depositions of oppositors’
witnesses who are residing at Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. We cannot agree to
oppositors’ allegation in their motion that ‘it will be most
inconvenient and expensive for those witnesses who are residing at Sta.
Cruz, Marinduque to go to Buenavista for their deposition’, for
Buenavista is easily accessible by bus transportation which oppositors
themselves can lawfully offer to their witnesses free of charge
according to the exception provided in Section 20(j), number (7) of the
Public Service Act. At any rate, if the oppositors really wanted to
have the depositions of their witnesses taken in Sta. Cruz, instead of
in Buenavista, at the start they should have so stated and should have
objected to applicants’ motion to have the depositions of all the
parties taken before the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista.
Furthermore, oppositors have no explanation whatsoever in their motion
why the reception of the testimonies of their witnesses allegedly
residing in Manila have to take place first before they can proceed
with the taking of depositions of their other witnesses in Marinduque.
In view of the foregoing, oppositors’ motion of November 17, 1960 is
hereby denied. In accordance with, applicants’ motion dated January 16,
1961, and over oppositors’ written opposition against said motion, this
case is hereby considered submitted for decision on the depositions
taken, filed and offered as evidence by the applicants.”

Notified of said decision, the petitioners timely filed a
motion for reconsideration of the same, on May 5, 1961.
Subsequently thereafter, on May 18, 1961, petitioners filed
a motion to set for the date of hearing of the motion for
reconsideration as provided for by Sec. 34 of the Public
Service Act.^[2]
The respondent Commission did not act on the latter motion and
petitioners filed a second motion of the same tenor dated June 5, 1961.
Without any hearing on the petition for reconsideration, and without
deciding petitioners’ motion to set the date of hearing of the motion
for reconsideration, the respondent Commission on May 25, 1961 issued
an order denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. As a
consequence petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari.

As heretofore stated, the only question to be resolved
is whether petitioners have been denied the opportunity
to present their evidence and deprived of their day in
court, and whether the respondent Commission, in view
of the foregoing facts, had acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the
certificate of public convenience to respondents herein.

It should be recalled that the respondent Commission,
by its order of October 4, 1960, granted the petitioners
up to December 5, 1960 to present the deposition of their
witnesses to be taken before the Justice of the Peace of
Buenavista. Before that date, however or on November 17,
petitioners moved for reconsideration of this order praying
. that they be allowed to present before the Commission their
witnesses residing in Manila, (who were agents of the
Commission itself) —and to set a date for this purpose,
and to take the deposition of their witnesses residing in
Sta. Cruz, before the Justice of the Peace of that municipality, instead of the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista
as ordered. Petitioners, at the same time, asked the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista to suspend the taking of
the deposition set for November 28, 1960 pending resolution of their petition by the Commission. Respondents
likewise moved for the same suspension on the ground that
their attorneys had trials in other courts on that same
date. Accordingly, the Justice of the Peace of Buenavista
suspended the taking of the depositions.

In the meantime, the motion of petitioners of November
17, remained unacted upon by the Commission for which
reason petitioners could not present their witnesses. Again
in their opposition to the petition of the respondents of
January 16,1961, asking that petitioners be declared guilty
of laches, petitioners again called attention to the fact
that their motion to permit the presentation of their witnesses in Manila and that a date for that purpose be set,

had not yet been resolved by the Commission. It was only
m the decision itself, dated April 13, 1961, that the Commission denied petitioners’ plea that they be allowed to
present before the Commission their witnesses residing
in Manila and to take the depositions of their witnesses
in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque before the Justice of the Peace
of that municipality. Under these circumtances, it is
clear that it is not the fault of petitioners that they were
unable to produce their witnesses, but rather it was due
to the inaction on the part of the Commission for 5 months —from November 22, 1960 to April 13, 1961—to pass upon
the timely and reasonable request of the petitioners. It
is to be noted that the motion for reconsideration of the
decision of April 13 has never been set for hearing inspite
of two petitions to that effect, before the same was denied,
contrary to the provision of Section 34 of the Public Service Act, as amended, disposing that “it shall be the duty
of the Commission to call a hearing on said petition (for
reconsideration) immediately, with notice to the parties
and after hearing, to decide on the same promptly, either
denying the petition or revoking or modifying the order,
ruling or decision under consideration.”

Wherefore, the writ of certiorari prayed for by petitioners is granted. Respondent Commission’s decision of
April 13, 1961, complained of, is hereby set aside and the
case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance
with law. So ordered.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

^[2] SEC. 34. Any interested party may request the
reconsideration of any order, ruling, or decision of the Commission by
means of a petition filed not later than fifteen days after the date of
the notice of the order, ruling or decision in the petition. The
grounds on which the request for reconsideration is based shall be
clearly and specifically stated in the petition. Copies of said
petition shall be served on all parties interested in the matter. It shall be the duty of the Commission to call a hearing on said petition immediately, with notice to the parties,
and after hearing to decide the same promptly, either denying the
petition or revoking or modifying the order, ruling or decision under
consideration. (Italics supplied.)