Mary Joyce O.

Gaspi
Transportation Law: Case Digest: Due Process Requirements
Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission
Gr. No. 47065 June 26, 1940
FACTS:
For the past twenty (20) years and with certificates of public convenience issued by the former
Public Utility Commission, Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (Pantranco) has been engaged in the
business of transporting passengers of Pangasinan and Tarlac, Nueva Ecija and Zambales through TPU
buses. On 26 August 1939, Pantranco filed with the Public Service Commission (PSC) an application for
authorization to operate additional Brockway trucks in order for it to satisfy the conditions of the said
certificates of public convenience and as a result of the Eight Hour Labor Law. The PSC granted the
application but with two (2) conditions: (1) Said certificates of public convenience and
AUTHORIZATION shall be valid and subsisting only during twenty-five (25) years from the date of the
promulgation of this decision; and (2) the service can be acquired by the Commonwealth of the
Philippines or by any of its instrumentality thereof upon payment of the cost price of its useful equipment
less depreciation. This is rooted from Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by Section
1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 which further provides that xxx the violation of any of these (2)
conditions shall produce the immediate cancellation of the certificate without the necessity of any express
action on the part of the Commission.
Pantranco, not agreeing to the two conditions, filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied
by the PSC. Hence it filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the SC praying: (1) that the Legislature
through Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454 granted the PSC powers without limitation, guide or
rule, hence be declared unconstitutional and void; and (2) that should the SC be in the opinion that the
same is constitutional, a decision be rendered that the provisions thereof are not applicable to valid and
subsisting certificates prior its enforcement and its application by the PSC violates constitutional
guarantee.
Issue: Whether or not the constitutional right of Pantranco to due process was violated by the acts of PSC
in granting Pantrancos application though with two (2) conditions, applying and enforcing the provisions
of Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 454.
Ruling:
Yes. The decision of PSC should be reversed and the case be remanded thereto for further
proceedings.
The PSC has power under Section 16, CA No. 146, upon proper notice and hearing, to amend,
modify or revoke at any time any certificate issued under the provision of this Act, whenever the facts and
circumstances on the strength of which said certificate was issued have been misrepresented or materially
changed. The petitioners application was for an authorization to increase its equipment to enable it to
comply with the conditions of its certificates of convenience. On the matter of limiting the life of the
certificates of convenience to twenty-five (25) years (condition 1), there had been neither notice nor
opportunity given to the petitioner to be heard or present evidence. Xxx There must be cardinal primary
rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right

to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit
evidence in support thereof.