CRISTINA D. DE CEZAR, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND PANAY AUTOBUS COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari praying
for the annul ment by this court of the decision rendered by the Public
Service Commission in case No. 48812, entitled Panay Autobus Company,
Inc. vs. Cristina D. de Cezar, the herein petitioner. In the decision
in question Cristina D. de Cezar is ordered “to complete her equipment
by registering for this purpose seven (7) autotrucks in addition to
those already registered by her, with the obligation to do so within
thirty (30) days counted from the date of this decision, warning her
that upon her failure to make the registration required herein, her
lines Jaro-Dumangas via Zarraga and Jaro-Dingle via Janiuay will be
cancelled.” “She is likewise ordered to pay the costs of investigation,
etc., etc.”

The petitioner seeks the annulment of the foregoing decision
alleging that she had filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground
that she neither had been notified of the hearing in said case, nor had
had knowledge of the existence thereof until she received a copy of the
decision; that the motion for reconsideration was denied on the ground
that it had been filed out of time; that as the petitioner had not been
notified of the time or place of the hearing, the Public Service
Commission had no jurisdiction to render the decision, which is null
and void; and that, having lost the right to appeal, she has no other
remedy except that of certiorari now sought by her.

In answering the petition, the Public Service Commission alleged
that the summons, together with a copy of the complaint in said case
No. 48812, was sent by ordinary mail to the petitioner C. V. de Cezar
on July 7, 1937, and that the envelope containing the summons and the
copy of the complaint, addressed to Cristina V. de Cesar, Calle
Fuentes, Iloilo, has never been returned to the Public Service
Commission as unclaimed, attaching an affidavit to that effect, made by
Simeon Larracas, an employee of the commission.

However, granting that the petitioner had never received the notice
as she asserts, it not being established in any manner that she has
been injured by the decision of the commission, or that she has a good
defense to set up in her favor, the petition is without merit for the
purpose of the issuance of the writ of certiorari applied for; all the
more so because, as the petitioner is ordered in the decision “to complete her equipment by
registering1 for this purpose seven (7) autotrucks in addition to those
already registered by her/’ it is evident that it does not refer to new
matter but merely reiterates a former order so that the petitioner may
comply with what she has already been ordered.

On the other hand, the petitioner having failed to state the date
on which she received a copy of the decision in the motion for
reconsideration presented before the Public Service Commission as well
as in the petition for certiorari, it is impossible to determine
whether or not she lost the right to appeal through any fault on her
part.

The petition is denied, with costs to the petitioner. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.