Pangasinan Transport Co. vs. PublicService CommissionGR NO. 47065, June 26, 1940

FACTS:This is a case on the certificate of public convenience of petitioner PangasinanTransportation Co. Inc (Pantranco).The petitioner has been engaged for the pasttwentyyears in the business of transporting passengers in the province of Pangasinan and Tarlac,Nueva Ecija and Zambales.On August 26,1939, Pantranco filed with thePublic ServiceCommission (PSC) an application to operate 10 additional buses.PSC granted theapplication with 2 additional conditions which was madeto apply alsoon their existingbusiness.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 iswithoutlimitation- constitutes undue delegation ofpowers

HELD:The challenged provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 454are validand constitutionalbecause it is a proper delegation of legislative power, so called Subordinate Legislation.Itis avalid delegation because of thegrowing complexities ofmodern government, thecomplexities or multiplication of thesubjects of governmental regulation and the increaseddifficulty of administering the laws. All that has been delegated to the Commission is theadministrative function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the will of the NationalAssembly having in view, in addition, the promotion of public interests in a proper andsuitable manner.The Certificate of Public Convenience is neithera franchise norcontract, confers noproperty rights and is a mere license or privilege, subject togovernmental control for thegood of thepublic.PSC has the power, uponnotice and hearing, to amend, modify, orrevoked at any time any certificate issued, whenever the facts andcircumstances sowarranted.The limitation of 25 years was never heard, so the case was remanded to PSCfor further proceedings.In addition, the Court ruled that, the liberty andproperty of the citizens should beprotected by the rudimentary requirements of fair 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 affected with a public interest, it ceased tobe juris privati or private use only.

PANTRANCO vs. PSC, 70 Phil 229 (1940)

FACTS:

PANTRANCO, a holder of an existing Certificate of Public Convenience is applying to operate additional buses with thePublic Service Commission(PSC). The PSC granted the application but added several conditions for PANTRANCOs compliance.

ISSUE:

PANTRANCO is questioning whether PSC can impose said conditions. If so, wouldnt this power of the PSC, as provided for under sec. 15, CA 146, constitute undue delegation of powers?

HELD:

SC held that there was valid delegation of powers.

The theory of theseparationof powers is designed by its originators to secure action at the same time forestall overaction which necessarily results from undue concentration of powers and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent deposition. But due to the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication ofsubjectsof governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of administering laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of subordinate legislation.

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.

1