NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND BERNARDINO TORRIJOS, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. PASTOR V. VALERA, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This
is a petition for review, filed by the petitioners Northern Luzon
Transportation Co., Inc., and Bernardino Torrijos, of the decision
rendered by the Public Service Commission authorizing the respondent
herein, Pastor V. Valera, to increase his trips over the routes covered
by his certificate of public convenience and to extend his operations
from Bangued, Province of Abra, to Ilagan, Province of Isabela, via San
Jose, Nueva Ecija, Bangued-Lubuagan, via Tagudin and Cervantes.

In support of their petition, the petitioners herein assign the
following alleged errors as committed by the Public Service Commission
in its decision, to wit:

“1. That the commission erred in rendering the decision without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.

“2.
That the commission erred in authorizing respondent Valera additional
trips between Bangued-Vigan via Narvacan and Bangued-Laoag via Narvacan
without imposing restrictions between Narvacan-Vigan and
Narvacan-Laoag.

“3. That the commission erred in
authorizing respondent Valera to operate between Bangued-Ilagan when
the said route was excluded during the hearing.

“4. That
the commission erred in authorizing Pastor V. Valera to operate between
Bangued-Lubuagan and Bangued-Ilagan without ordering the issuance of
new certificate of public convenience.

“5. The commission erred in denying the motion for reconsideration and rehearing.”

The following pertinent facts are necessary for the resolution of the questions raised in this appeal, to wit:

On August 31, 1931, the applicant-respondent Pastor V. Valera filed an
application with the Public Service Commission seeking authority to
increase his trips over the routes covered by his certificate of public
convenience and to extend his operations to Bangued-Narvacan, via
Pilar, and Bangued-Baguio lines.

On March 5, 1932, the
Public Service Commission entered the corresponding order setting the
application in question for hearing on March 17, 1932.

This
application was opposed by the Manila Railroad Co., the Northern Luzon
Transportation Co., Inc., and Bernardino Torrijos.

On March
17, 1932, Attorney A. Brillantes, counsel for the applicant-respondent,
Pastor V. Valera, served a motion upon the aforesaid oppositors seeking
authority from the commission to insert in Exhibit A of the application
additional extensions of the line, to wit: Bangued-Lubuagan (Mountain
Province), and Bangued-Ilagan, via San Jose, Nueva Ecija, and
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

The hearing commenced on March
17th and continued through the 18th of the same month and the 2nd and
3d of September, 1932, before the then Commissioner Cruz, in the City
of Manila.

Upon petition of the applicant Pastor V. Valera,
the commission authorized the justice of the peace of Bangued, Abra, to
receive the testimony of additional witnesses, by way of depositions.
The commission to that effect was issued on October 22, 1932.

On November 19, 1932, the commission received the depositions taken therein.

On January 6, 1933, the applicant Pastor V. Valera filed with the
commission an amended application accompanied by an amended time
schedule, without furnishing copies thereof to the oppositors who had
registered their written oppositions thereto.

On March 2,
1933, the commission, without previous notice to the oppositors,
considered the amended application as well as the amended time schedule
accompanying it, and rendered its decision approving it in part.

On March 14, 1933, a motion for reconsideration and new trial was
filed. This motion was denied by the commission by an order dated March
18, 1933, copy of which was received by the oppositors on March 25,
1933.

The first question to decide in this petition for
review is that raised in the second assignment of error consisting in
the commission having authorized the applicant Pastor V. Valera to make
additional trips between Bangued-Vigan via Narvacan and Bangued-Laoag
via Narvacan without imposing restrictions between Narvacan-Vigan and
Narvacan-Laoag.

During the hearing of the case before former
Commissioner Cruz, the following incident, appearing on page 5 of the
transcript of stenographic notes, took place, to wit:

“JUDGE. It is necessary to impose a restriction not to pick up passengers from Vigan to Narvacan and vice versa.—A. Yes, sir.

“JUDGE. Do those operators mentioned by you pick up passengers between those points?—A. Yes, sir.

“BRILLANTES. It means that during these additional trips we are not going to pick up passengers between those points.”

In the case of Soriano and Santos vs. Del Rosario and Rural Transit Co. (55 Phil., 934, 938), this court said:

“*
* * In the matter before us the hearing was before Commissioner Cruz,
who in fact, upon hearing the motion, announced the conclusion to which
he had come and the nature of the order which he intended to enter.
After this stage of the proceedings had been reached, we are of the
opinion that it was improper for Commissioner Del Rosario to decide the
motion differently without at least conceding to the parties interested
an opportunity to be heard. And if there cannot properly be said to
have been absolute want of jurisdiction on the part of the respondent
commissioner to enter the order which is the subject of this
application, there was at least an irregular exercise of judicial power
by him, in excess of his lawful jurisdiction, such as supplies a basis
for the writ of certiorari. (Leung Ben vs. O’Brien, 38 Phil., 182, 186.)”

Pursuant to the doctrine laid down in the above case, it was therefore
improper and the Public Service Commission was not justified in
authorizing the additional trips sought by Pastor V. Valera without any
restriction whatsoever between Narvacan-Vigan and Narvacan-Laoag. The
second assignment of error is, therefore, well taken.

The
second question to decide, which is raised in the third assignment of
error, is whether or not the Public Service Commission erred in
authorizing the applicant, Pastor V. Valera, to operate between
Bangued, Province of Abra, and Ilagan, Province of Isabela, after the
route in question had been excluded during the hearing.

This same question was raised in case No. 28185 of the Public Service Commission, G. R. No. 39456^[1]
of this court, wherein Pastor V. Valera was applicant and the Rural
Transit Co., Ltd., was oppositor, and this court held the following:

“There
is no doubt that once the Bangued-Ilagan line, on which the
applicant-appellee, Pastor V. Valera, had applied for authority to
extend his operations, is abandoned, the Public Service Commission
could not grant him such authority in its decision on the ground that
no hearing relative to the line in question was held and that the
opponents thereto were not given an opportunity to present evidence in
support of their opposition. Therefore, the Public Service Commission
exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the authority applied for.”

The third assignment of alleged error is likewise well taken.

With respect to the notice to the oppositors regarding the amendment to
the application, seeking additional trips and extension of the lines in
operation, inasmuch as the respective attorneys for the respective
oppositors appeared at the hearing of the case wherein the motion for
amendment was served upon them, failure to serve previous notice
thereof does not constitute a prejudicial error sufficient to justify
the reversal of the judgment rendered therein.

With respect
to the authority granted to Pastor V. Valera to operate between
Bangued-Lubuagan and Bangued-Ilagan, without ordering the issuance of a
new certificate of public convenience to that effect, it is obvious
that the fourth assignment of alleged error has now become a moot
question inasmuch as the decision authorizing such extension has been
declared erroneous.

In view of the foregoing considerations,
we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the inclusion in a decision of
the Public Service Commission of an authority to extend a line, the
motion for which has been excluded during the hearing, is erroneous.

Wherefore, the decision, the review of which is prayed for herein, is
hereby modified, excluding therefrom the authority granted to the
applicant Pastor V. Valera to extend his operations to the
Bangued-Ilagan line and imposing the restriction not to pick up
passengers from Vigan to Narvacan and vice versa, without special
pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Malcolm, Hull, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Page 93, ante.