Pangasinan Transport Co. vs. Public Service CommissionGR NO.

47065, June 26,

1940FACTS:

This is a case on the certificate of public convenience of petitioner PangasinanTransportation Co. Inc
(Pantranco). The petitioner has been engaged for the past twentyyears 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 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 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 constitutionalbecause 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, thecomplexities or
multiplication of the subjects 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
neither a franchise nor contract, confers noproperty rights and is a mere license or privilege,
subject to governmental control for thegood of the public. PSC has the power, upon notice and hearing,
to amend, modify, orrevoked at any time any certificate issued, whenever the facts
and circumstances 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
and property 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 to be juris privati or
private use only.