Author: James Dy
Danan v. Asperilla (1962)
Petitioners: DOMINADOR DANAN and ADORACION FERNANDEZ
Respondents: HON. A. H. ASPILLERA, and HON. ALEJANDRO A. GALANG,
Commissioners of PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and CORTISAN & COMPANY,
INC
Ponente: Reyes
DOCTRINE: Petitions for Review challenging decisions or orders of the
Public Service Commission have to be filed within 30 days from the
time the petitioners received a copy thereof. A late filing makes the
challenged order final and irrevocable.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners were holders of a certificate of public convenience for
the installation, maintenance and operation of a 4 ton ice plant in
Orion, Bataan issued to them by the Public Service Commission in
1958. (but started operation of it even before being granted the
certificate)
2. However, 2 years later on February 2, 1960, it was found that they
stopped operations of their ice plant for 3 years already, thus
their certificate of public convenience for operation of the ice
plant was revoked.
3. On February 4, 1960 (2 days later), the Commission in Case No.
129277 granted to respondents Cortisan & Co. a certificate of
public convenience to install and operate a 10 ton ice plant in
the same municipality with due notice to petitioners. However, the
petitioners failed to appear during the hearing due to an alleged
accident, thus the permit granted to Cortisan remained in full
force and effect.
4. Petitioners filed a joint motion for reconsideration and reopening of
Case No. 129277, both denied. The order of denial received by
petitioners on July 21, 1960.
5. On August 22, 1960, petitioners filed their Petition For Review. This
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
cognizance of
PROVISIONS:
Sec. 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146
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
cases, or by petition, to be known as Petition for Review, which shall be filed within thirty
days from the notification of such order, ruling, or decision or, in case a petition for the
reconsideration of such order, ruling, or decision is filed in accordance with the preceding
section and the same as denied, it shall be filed within fifteen days after notice of the order
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)
Section 1, Rule 43, of the Rules of Court
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
file, in the Supreme Court, a written petition for the review of such order or decision.
RULING + RATIO:
1. NO. The petition for review was filed beyond the
reglementary period, thus the challenged orders are now
final.
Both the order cancelling petitioners certificate, and the
order granting the certificate to the respondents are
now final, irrevocable, and executor due to the late
filing.
It should have been filed 30 days from receipt of
the challenged order, but it was filed 32 days after..
The Court however commented that the Commissions ex parte
revocation of certificate without giving the petitioners previous notice
and opportunity to explain their side violated the due process of the
Constitution. However, the finality of the order was still upheld.
DISPOSITION: The petition for review is hereby denied for having be filed beyond
the reglementary period, the orders complained of having thereby become final. Costs
against petitioners.