G.R. No. L-3629
March 19, 1951
ELISEO SILVA, petitioner,
vs. BELEN CABRERA, respondent.
Rivera, Castaño, Medina and Lozada and Roman Cruz for petitioner. Evaristo R. Sandoval for respondent. MONTEMAYOR, J.:
In the Public Service Commission Belen Cabrera filed an application for a certificate of public convenience to install, maintain, and operate in the City of Lipa, an ice plant with a 15ton daily productive capacity and to sell the produce of said plant in several municipalities of Batan!as province as well as in the City of Lipa. Eliseo Silva and andOpulencia Opulencia & Lat , holdres of certificates of public convenience to operate each a 15ton ice plant, opposed the application on the !round that their service was ade"uate for the needs of the public, and that public convenience did not re"uire the operation of the ice plant applied for by Cabrera. Instead of the Commission conductin! the correspondin! hearin! in order to receive the evidence to be presented by applicant and oppositors, Commissioner #eliciano $campo by order dated %uly 1&, 1'&', 1' &', commissioned (tty. (ntonio ). (spillera, Chief of the Le!al *ivision +to tae the testimony of witnesses+ in this case pursuant to the provisions of section - of Commonwealth (ct /o. 1&0 nown a s the Public (ct (ttorney (spillera conducted hearin!s, and received etensive evidence, oral and documentary, the transcript of the steno!raphic notes taen consistin! of 2 pa!es. 3hereafter, the Commission in banc rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows4 In view of the fore!oin!, and findin! from the evidence that public interests and convenience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by authoriin! the applicant to operate a 16ton ice plant in Lipa City, and that applicant is a #ilipino citien and is financially "ualified to install and operate a 16ton ice plant, the oppositions of 7liseo Silva and $pulencia 8 Lat are hereby overruled, and a certificate of public convenience to operate a 16ton ice plant in the City of Lipa is hereby !ranted to the applicant herein, Belen Cabrera, the said certificate to be sub9ect to the followin!. 7liseo Silva, one of the oppositors filed the present petition for review assi!nin! two errors, to wit4 7::$: I. ; 3hat section - prohibits a hearin! before any person other than a Commissioner in contested cases< conse"uently, the dele!ation made by the Commission to (ttorney (spillera is ille!al and contrary to law. 7::$: II. ; 3hat the decision is not supported by evidence to warrant the =rant of the certificate to applicantrespondent Belen Cabrera. >e shall address ourselves to the first assi!ned error because the determination of the same disposes of this appeal. 3he le!al point raised in this assi!nment of error was also
raised before the Commission. (t the be!innin! of the hearin! before (ttorney (spillera, counsel for oppositors, Silva, now petitioner, ased that the hearin! be had before one of the Commissioners because it was a contested case. >hen his petition was overruled, he made it of record that his continuin! + with the hearin! of this case shall not be understood as a waiver of our ob9ection+ ?t. s. n., p. -@. It is therefore clear that petitioner is not raisin! this issue here for the first time. >hile petitioner Silva contends that the dele!ation made by the Commission to (ttorney (spillera to tae the testimony of witnesses was ille!al and contrary to the provisions of section - of the Public Service (ct as amended by :ep ublic (ct /o. 12A, respondent e"ually claims that said dele!ation is perfectly proper and le!al. It will be remembered that the dele!ation to receive testimony was made under the provisions of section - of the Public Service (ct ?Com. (ct /o. 1&0@. Said section reads as follows4 S7C. -. 3he Commission may, in any investi!ation or hearin!, b y its order in writin!, cause the depositions of witnesses residin! within or without the Philippines to be taen in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. 3he Commission may also, by proper order, commission any of the a ttorneys of the Commission or chiefs of division to receive evidence, and it may liewise commission any cler the court of first instance of 9ustice of the Peace of the Philippines to tae the testimony of the witnesses any case pendin! before the Commission where such witnesses reside in places distant from anila and it would be inconvenient and epensive for them to appea r personally before the Commission. It shall be the duty of the cler of the Court of #irst Instance or 9ustice of the peace so commissioned to desi!nate promptly a date or dates for the tain! of such evidence, !ivin! timely notice to the parties, and on such date to proceed to tae the evidence, reducin! it to writin!. (fter the evidence h as been taen, the 9ustice of the peace shall forthwith certify to the correctness of the testimony of the witnesses and forward it to the Commission. It shall be the duty of the respective parties to furnish steno!raphers for tain! and transcribin! the testimony taen. In case there was no steno!raphers available, the testimony shall be taen in lon! hand by such person as the 9ustice of the peace may desi!nate. #or the convenience of the parties the Commission may also commission any other person to tae the evidence in the same manner. #or purpose of reference we are also reproducin! the pertinent portion of section - of the same (ct as amended by :epublic (ct /o. 12A, relied upon by the petitioner4 (ll the powers herein vested upon the Commission shall be considered vested upon any of the Commissioner, actin! either individually or 9ointly as hereinafter pro vided. 3he Commissioners shall e"uitably divide amon! themselves all pendin! cases and those that may hereafter be submitted to the C ommission, in such manner and from as they determine, and shall proceed to hear and determine the cases assi!ned to each< Provided, hoever , 3hat ?1@ all contested cases, ?@ all cases involvin! the fiin! of rates, and ?-@ all petitions for reconsideration of orders or decisions shall be heard by the Commission in !anc , and the affirmative vote of at least two Commissioner shall be necessary for the promul!ation of a decision or a non interlocutory order4 (nd, provided , further, 3hat in cases ?1@ and ?@ the Commission
may dele!ate the reception of the evidence to one of the Commissioners, who shall report to the Commission in banc, the evidence so received by him to enable it to render its decision. ?nderlinin! is ours@ (fter eaminin! the law, particularly the lan!ua!e used in section - and -, above"uoted, we a!ree with the petitioner that the dele!ation made to (ttorney (spillera especially considerin! the manner in which he received the evidence, was contrary to the provisions of the public Service (ct. 3he law ?sec. -@ is clear that in a contested case lie the present, only the Co mmission in banc is authoried to conduct the hearin!, althou!h said Commission may dele!ate the reception of the evidence to one of the Commissioners who shall report to the Commission in !anc , the evidence so received by him. nder Commonwealth (ct /o. 1&0 before it was amended by :epublic (ct /o. 12A, the Public Service Commission only of a Public Service Commissioner and a deputy Commissioner. 3he *eputy Commissioner acted only on matters dele!ated to him by the Public Service Commissioner, and in case of the latterDs absence, illness or incapacity, he acted in his stead. 3he Public Service Commissioner alone heard and disposed of all cases, contested and noncontested. 3here could therefore be no hearin! or decision in banc. 3he Le!islature in promul!atin! Commonwealth (ct 1&0 evidently believed that one Commissioner, either the Public Service Commissioner or his deputy if properly commissioned, was sufficient to hear and decide even contested cases and cases involvin! the fiin! of rates. nder said Commonwealth (ct 1&0 before amendment, particularly section - thereof, the Commission besides authoriin! the tain! of depositions and the testimonies of the witnesses by cler of courts of first instance and 9ustice of the peace in the provinces, also authoried the reception of evidence by the CommissionDs attorneys and chiefs of divisions. 3hen came :epublic (ct 12A amendin! sections and - of Commonwealth (ct 1&0 main! the Commission to consist of one Public Service Commissioners and two (ssociate Public Service Commissioner under the second section, and under section -, as already seen from the reproduction of said section, re"uirin! that all contested cases involvin! the fiin! of rates, he heard and decided by the three Commissioners in banc althou!h the reception of evidence may be dele!ated to one of the Commissioners alone. 3he inference is obvious. In contested cases lie present, the Le!islature did not wish to entrust the holdin! of a hearin! and the reception of evidence to anyone but the three Commissioners actin! in banc or one of them when properly authoried. It is ur!ed on the part of the respondent that the order of dele!ation in favor of (tty. (spillera +was a mere authority Eto tae the testimony of witnesses in the aboveentitled caseD, which in fact is in the form of a deposition and not a reception of evidence, much less a hearin!+ ?p. ', brief for respondent@, and so does not violate section -. (n eamination of the record does not support this contention. >hat (tty. (spillera did was to represent the Commission, act as a sort of Commissioner, conduct hearin!s, receive evidence, oral and documentary, and pass upon petitions and ob9ections as they came up in the course of said hearin!. )e even addressed "uestions to the witnesses. )e passed upon the competency and admissibility of ehibits and admitted them. In the transcript of the steno!raphic notes, (tty. (spillera is repeatedly referred to as the +Commission+ and the proceedin!s had
before him on different dates as +hearin!s+. ?t. s. n. pp. 1, -, 5, 0, A0, '6.@ (fter the submission of the evidence (tty. (spillera declared the +Case submitted+. ?t. s. n. p. 2.@ It is obvious that the evidence received by (tty. (spillera were not mere depositions or testimonies, and that his actuation that of a mere official lie a 9ustice of the peace receivin! a deposition under the provisions of :ule 1A of the :ules of Court. 3he role played by (tty. (spillera was rather that of a Commissioner under :ule -& wherein he acted as a representative of the Commission that made the dele!ation to him, passed upon petitions and ob9ections durin! the trial, either overrulin! or sustainin! the same and ordered witnesses to answer if the ob9ection to the "uestion was overruled, and then main! his findin!s and report to the body that commissioned him. :espondent cites the case of (bel =. #lores, applicant vs. (. L. (mmen 3ransportation Co., Inc., oppositor, case /o. 21&1 of the Public Service Commission wherein the same point of the le!ality of a dele!ation to tae testimony was involved. 3he oppositor in that case believin! that the Commission eceeded its 9urisdiction in main! the dele!ation, brou!ht the case to this Supreme Court under =.:. /o. L10-2 but its petition for certiorari was dismissed for lac of merit. #rom this, respondent infers that even in contested cases the reception of evidence may be dele!ated to a person other than one of the Commissioners. >e have eamined that case and we find that the authority !iven there was not to receive evidence but to tae a deposition and that the person dele!ated was a 9ustice of the peace. >e "uote a portion of the order of (ssociate Commissioner =abriel P. Prieto in that case4 7s verdad "ue el articulo - de la Ley claramente dispone "ue en los asuntos contenciosos y en "ue envuelven la fi9acion de tarifas la Comision solo puede dele!ar la recepcion de lads pruebas a cual"uiera de sus Comisionados. Pero tambien es cierto, "ue la deposicion no una dele!acion de la recepcion de las pruebas, por"ue al funcionario "ue la toma, la ley no le concede las facultades del tribunal "ue ha ordenado dicha deposicion. 7n efecto, la :e!la 1A de los :e!lamentos "ue re!ula esta actuacion, no autoria al funcionario "ue toma la deposicion para resolver las cuestiones "ue sur!en o se suscitan durante su actuacion< no le faculta para hacer sus conclusiones de hecho o de derecho< ni le permite, si"uiera, rendir informe o report de todo lo actuado. Su unica o!li!acion es certificar la declaracion tal como ha sido prestada por el deponente. 7l "ue toma la deposicion no es como el arbitro o comisionado de "ue habla la :e!la -& de los :e!lamentos, "ue actua por dele!acion y obra en representacion del tribunal "ue le ha nombrado. It will readily be noticed from the portion of the order above"uoted that Commissioner Prieto admits that under section - as amended, in contested cases and cases involvin! the fiin! of rates, the Commission may dele!ate the reception of evidence only to one of the Commissioners and to no one else. 3he respondent also calls our attention to the case of Ce!u "ransit Co. #nc., vs. $ereza, ?5A Phil., 206@, wherein this court held that the C ommission was authoried to desi!nate Commissioners for the purpose of receivin! evidence, and that the law did not contain any prohibition. 3hat case is inapplicable for at that time in the year 1'-- when the case was decided, :epublic (ct 12A had not yet been promul!ated, said (ct havin! passed only in 1'&2.
In conclusion, we hold that under the provisions of section - of the Public Service (ct as amended by :epublic (ct 12A, the reception of evidence in a contested case may be dele!ated only to one of the Commissioners and to no one else, it bein! understood that such reception of evidence consists in conductin! hearin!s, receivin! evidence, oral and documentary, passin! upon the relevancy and competency of the same, rulin! upon petitions and ob9ections that come up in course of the hearin!s, and receivin! and re9ectin! evidence in accordance with said rulin!s. )owever, under section -, of the same (ct, even in contested cases or cases involvin! the fiin! of rates, any attorney of chief of d ivision of the Commission, a cler of court of Courts of #irst Instance, or a %ustice of the Peace, may be authoried to tae depositions or receive the testimonies of witnesses, provided that the same is done under provisions of :ule 1A of the :ules of Court. >e realie that our present rulin! will !reatly handicap the Public Service Commission and slow down its tempo in the disposal of contested cases and cases involvin! the fiin! of rates, especially where the witnesses reside in the provinces< but where the law is clear, neither this court nor the commission may on !rounds of convenience, epediency or prompt dispatch of cases, disre!ard the law or circumvent the same. 3he remedy lies with the Le!islature if it could be convinced of the necessity of amendin! the law, and persuaded to approve a suitable amendment. #indin! that the dele!ation of the reception of evidence in this case as well as the eercise of the authority so !iven, are in violation of section - of the Public Service (ct as amended, we set aside the order of dele!ation of %uly 1&, 1'&', and declare all the proceedin!s had thereunder to be null and void. Settin! aside the decision appealed from, let this case be returned to the Public Service Commission so that evidence may be submitted by the parties in a hearin!s before the Commission in !anc of before any of the Commissioners if properly authoried, unless of course, said parties a!ree at said hearin! or hearin!s to re submit the evidence already presented and taen down, with such modifications and under such conditions as they may a!ree upon, includin! such other evidence which they may wish to present. 3here is no pronouncement as to costs. So ordered. Paras, %eria, Pa!lo, en'zon, Padilla, "uason, Re(es, $u'o and autista )n'elo, $$., concur.
