Pangasinan Transport Co. vs.

Public Service Commission

GR NO. 47065, June 26, 1940

FACTS:

This is a case on the certificate of public convenience of petitioner Pangasinan

Transportation Co. Inc (Pantranco). The petitioner has been engaged for the past twenty
years in the business of transporting passengers in the province of Pangasinan and Tarlac,
Nueva Ecija and Zambales. On August 26, 1939, Pantranco filed with the Public Service
Commission (PSC) an application to operate 10 additional buses. PSC granted the
application with 2 additional conditions which was made to apply also on their existing
business. Pantranco filed a motion for reconsideration with the Public Service Commission.
Since it was denied, Pantranco then filed a petition/ writ of certiorari.

ISSUES:

Whether the legislative power granted to Public Service Commission:

- is unconstitutional and void because it is without limitation
- constitutes undue delegation of powers

HELD:

The challenged provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 454 are valid and constitutional
because it is a proper delegation of legislative power, so called “Subordinate Legislation”. It
is a valid delegation because of the growing complexities of modern government, the
complexities or multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation and the increased
difficulty of administering the laws. All that has been delegated to the Commission is the
administrative function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the will of the National
Assembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of public interests in a proper and
suitable manner.

The Certificate of Public Convenience is neither a franchise nor contract, confers no

property rights and is a mere license or privilege, subject to governmental control for the
good of the public. PSC has the power, upon notice and hearing, “to amend, modify, or
revoked at any time any certificate issued, whenever the facts and circumstances so
warranted. The limitation of 25 years was never heard, so the case was remanded to PSC
for further proceedings.

In addition, the Court ruled that, “the liberty and property of the citizens should be
protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play. Not only must the party be given
an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights
that he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. When private
property is affected with a public interest, it ceased to be juris privati or private use only.