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 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 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. 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.