1. The petitioners challenged orders from the Public Service Commission revoking their ice plant certificate and granting a certificate to competitors, but filed their petition for review 32 days later, beyond the 30 day limit.
2. The court denied the petition as the orders were now final and irrevocable due to the late filing beyond the reglementary period.
3. However, the court commented that the Commission violated due process by revoking the petitioners' certificate without prior notice or opportunity to explain.
1. The petitioners challenged orders from the Public Service Commission revoking their ice plant certificate and granting a certificate to competitors, but filed their petition for review 32 days later, beyond the 30 day limit.
2. The court denied the petition as the orders were now final and irrevocable due to the late filing beyond the reglementary period.
3. However, the court commented that the Commission violated due process by revoking the petitioners' certificate without prior notice or opportunity to explain.
1. The petitioners challenged orders from the Public Service Commission revoking their ice plant certificate and granting a certificate to competitors, but filed their petition for review 32 days later, beyond the 30 day limit.
2. The court denied the petition as the orders were now final and irrevocable due to the late filing beyond the reglementary period.
3. However, the court commented that the Commission violated due process by revoking the petitioners' certificate without prior notice or opportunity to explain.
SEC. 36. Any order, ruling or decision of the Commission may be reviewed on the application of any person or public service affected thereby, by certiorari in appropriate Petitioners: DOMINADOR DANAN and ADORACION FERNANDEZ cases, or by petition, to be known as Petition for Review, which shall be filed within thirty Respondents: HON. A. H. ASPILLERA, and HON. ALEJANDRO A. GALANG, days from the notification of such order, ruling, or decision or, in case a petition for the Commissioners of PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and CORTISAN & COMPANY, reconsideration of such order, ruling, or decision is filed in accordance with the preceding INC section and the same as denied, it shall be filed within fifteen days after notice of the order Ponente: Reyes denying reconsideration. Said petition shall be placed on file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court who shall furnish copies thereof to the Secretary of the Commission and other parties interested. (Emphasis supplied) DOCTRINE: Petitions for Review challenging decisions or orders of the Public Service Commission have to be filed within 30 days from the Section 1, Rule 43, of the Rules of Court time the petitioners received a copy thereof. A late filing makes the challenged order final and irrevocable. SECTION 1. Petition for Review. Within thirty (30) days from notice of an order or decision issued by the Public Service Commission . . . any party aggrieved thereby may FACTS: file, in the Supreme Court, a written petition for the review of such order or decision.
1. Petitioners were holders of a certificate of public convenience for RULING + RATIO:
the installation, maintenance and operation of a 4 ton ice plant in 1. NO. The petition for review was filed beyond the Orion, Bataan issued to them by the Public Service Commission in reglementary period, thus the challenged orders are now 1958. (but started operation of it even before being granted the final. certificate) Both the order cancelling petitioners certificate, and the 2. However, 2 years later on February 2, 1960, it was found that they order granting the certificate to the respondents are stopped operations of their ice plant for 3 years already, thus now final, irrevocable, and executor due to the late their certificate of public convenience for operation of the ice filing. plant was revoked. 3. On February 4, 1960 (2 days later), the Commission in Case No. It should have been filed 30 days from receipt of 129277 granted to respondents Cortisan & Co. a certificate of the challenged order, but it was filed 32 days after.. public convenience to install and operate a 10 ton ice plant in the same municipality with due notice to petitioners. However, the The Court however commented that the Commissions ex parte petitioners failed to appear during the hearing due to an alleged revocation of certificate without giving the petitioners previous notice accident, thus the permit granted to Cortisan remained in full and opportunity to explain their side violated the due process of the force and effect. Constitution. However, the finality of the order was still upheld. 4. Petitioners filed a joint motion for reconsideration and reopening of Case No. 129277, both denied. The order of denial received by DISPOSITION: The petition for review is hereby denied for having be filed beyond petitioners on July 21, 1960. the reglementary period, the orders complained of having thereby become final. Costs 5. On August 22, 1960, petitioners filed their Petition For Review. This against petitioners. is 32 days after petitioners received a copy of the order denying their motion.
ISSUE:
1. WoN the Petition for Review could still be taken
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company, Incorporated, of Norton v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company, Incorporated, of Norton, 953 F.2d 638, 4th Cir. (1992)
L.A. (Jack) Thomasson v. Jules J. Modlinski, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of Southside Community Services Board Edward Owens, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Board of Southside Community Services Board Southside Community Services Board Mecklenburg County, Virginia Brunswick County, Virginia Halifax County, Virginia City of South Boston, Virginia, and Bennett Nelson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Human Resource Manager to Community Service Boards With the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse, 76 F.3d 375, 4th Cir. (1996)