Pangasinan-Transport-Co.-vs.-Public-Service-Commission-GR-NO.-47065-June-26-1940

 

Pangasinan Transport Co. vs. Public Service Commission, GR NO. 47065,  June 26, 1940 FACTS:

This is a case on the certifcate o public convenience o petitioner PangasinanTransportation Co. Inc (Pantranco). The petitioner has been engaged or the past twentyyears in the business o transporting passengers in the province o Pangasinan Pangasinan and Tarlac Tarlac,Nueva ,Nueva Ecija and Zamb Zambales. ales. On August 26, 1939, Pantranco fled with the Public ServiceCommission (PSC) an application to operate 10 additional buses. PSC granted theapplication with 2 additional conditions which was made to apply also on their existingbusiness. Pantranco fled a motion or reconsideration with the Public Service Commission.Since it was denied, Pantranco then fled a petition/ writ o certiorari. ISSUES:

Whether the legislative power granted to Public Service Commission:- is unconstitutional and void because it is without limitation- constitutes undue delegation o powers HELD:

The challenged provisions o Commonwealth Act No. 454 are valid and constitutionalbecause it is a proper o legislative power, called “Subordinate Legislation”. It delegation is a valid delegation because o so the growing complexities o modern government, thecomplexities or multiplication o the subjects o governmental regulation and the increaseddiiculty o administering the laws. All that has been delegated to the Commission is theadministrative unction, involving the use o discretion to carry out the will o the NationalAssembly having in view, in addition, the promotion o  publ pu blic ic inte intere rest sts s in a p pro rope perr a andsuit ndsuitabl able e man manner ner.Th .The e Cer Certifc tifcate ate o Publ Public ic Convenience is neither a ranchise nor contract, coners noproperty rights and is a mere license or privilege, subject to governmental control or thegood o the public. PSC has the power, upon notice and hearing, “to amend, modiy, orrevoked at any time any certifcate issued, whenever the acts and circumstances sowarranted. The limitation o 25 years was never heard, so the case was remanded to PSCor urther proceedings.In addition, the Court ruled that,” the liberty and property o the citizens should beprotected by the rudimentary requirements o air play. Not only must the party be givenan opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rightsthat he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. When privateproperty is aected with a public interest, it ceased to be juris privati or private use only.