G.R. No. L-10152; July 31, 1958
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondent.

FACTS

On January 31, 1948, respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. applied with the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to operate a bus service between Urdaneta and Baguio and between Dagupan and Baguio via Kennon Road. The application was duly published, and individual notices were served on other operators as per the list furnished by the Commission. The Dangwa Transportation Co. filed an opposition but did not press it. After hearings commencing September 17, 1948, the Commission granted the certificate on June 5, 1955. More than five months later, in November 1955, petitioner Manila Railroad Company filed an unverified motion to set aside the decision and reopen the case. It alleged it was not notified of the application, hearings, or orders despite being an old operator on the lines, that the grant and operation were prejudicial to its interests, and that it had evidence that could alter the decision. The Commission denied the motion on December 8, 1955, noting that the Railroad Company was not a registered operator with the Commission at the time the hearing order was issued (October 14, 1948) and had only recently requested notification for bus service applications. The Commission also pointed out that the Railroad Company never sought to intervene during the pendency of the case, despite publication, and that reopening cases decided when it had no interest would be manifestly unfair simply because it later chose to operate on identical lines.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in denying the Manila Railroad Company’s motion to set aside the decision and reopen the case.

RULING

No, the Public Service Commission did not err. The order under review is affirmed. The Commission complied with legal requirements: the application and hearing order were published in two newspapers of general circulation, and copies were sent by registered mail to all operators on the Commission’s list. The grant of the certificate was based on a finding that the service would promote public interest. The petitioner’s lack of notification was due to its own failure, as it was not a registered operator with the Commission at the relevant time and only later asked to be notified of bus service applications. Furthermore, it never attempted to intervene during the prolonged proceedings despite publication, and it filed its motion for rehearing over five months after the decision. The motion itself was unverified and contained only general allegations of prejudice without specifying the nature of the prejudice or the evidence to be presented, which is insufficient to justify setting aside a decision that addresses a public need for additional service, especially given evidence that the petitioner’s buses could not accommodate all passengers on the lines.