Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (PANTRANCO) vs. The Public Service Commission (PSC) - G.R. No. 47065 - June 26, 1940 - En Banc - Ponente: Laurel, J.

Art. 1765. The Public Service Commission may, on its own motion or on petition of any interested party, after due hearing, cancel the certificate of public convenience granted to any common carrier that repeatedly fails to comply with his or its duty to observe extraordinary diligence as prescribed in this Section.

N.B. The Public Service Commission has been replaced by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board, Maritime Industry Authority and Civil Aeronautics Board.

Facts:

PANTRANCO has been engaged for the past twenty years in the business of transporting passengers in the province of Pangasinan, Tarlac, Nueva Ecija, and Zambales. On August 26, 1939, PANTRANCO filed with the PSC an application to operate ten (10 ) additional buses on grounds that they were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates of public convenience and as a result of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law.

On September 26, 1939, PSC granted PANTRANCO’s application for increase in equipment but amended the existing certificates issued to them to reflect two (2) additional conditions per Commonwealth Act. No. 146, as amended by Law No. 454 in that: (1) the certificates of public convenience and authorization will be valid and subsisting only for twenty-five (25) years, counted from the date of the promulgation of the decision; and (2) that the company of the applicant may be acquired by the Commonwealth of the Philippines or by any dependence thereof at any time that he wishes it upon payment of the price of the cost of his useful equipment, less a reasonable depreciation that has been set by the Commission at the time of its acquisition.

As PANTRANCO was not in favor of the two new conditions, it filed a Motion for Reconsideration with PANTRANCO which was denied by the latter. Hence, PANTRANCO filed this petition for a writ of certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not Commonwealth Act No. 454 is constitutional and applicable

Ruling:

Yes, Commonwealth Act No. 454 is constitutional and applicable.

The challenged provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 454 are valid and constitutional because it is a proper delegation of legislative power known as “subordinate legislation”. Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and toward the approval of the practice by the court.

All that has been delegated to the PSC is the administrative function, involving the use of discretion to carry out the will of the National Assembly having in view 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 good of the public. The Commission has the power, upon notice or hearing “to amend, modify, or revoke at any time any certificate issued whenever the facts and circumstances so warrant.” The decision was remanded to the Commission for further proceedings in accordance with law and the Court’s decision as PANTRANCO was not afforded the right to a hearing with neither notice nor opportunity for him to be heard or to present evidence.

Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tanon Strait v. Secretary Angelo Reyes; G.R. No. 180771 - April 21, 2015 - En Banc - Ponente: Leonardo-De Castro, J.

Facts:

On June 13, 2002, the Government of the Philippines, acting through the Department of Energy (DOE), entered into a Geophysical Survey and Exploration Contract (GSEC-102) with Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd. (JAPEX). The contract involved geological and geophysical studies of the Tanon Strait. The studies included surface geology, sample analysis, reprocessing of seismic and magnetic data, geophysical and satellite surveys, and oil and gas sampling in Tanon Strait.

On December 21, 2004, DOE and JAPEX formally converted GSEC-102 into SC-46 for the exploration, development, and production of petroleum resources in a block covering approximately 2,850 square kilometres offshore the Tanon Strait. JAPEX committed to drill an exploration well to be drilled in the marine waters of Aloguinsan and Pinamungajan, where the Tanon Strait was declared a protected seascape in 1988, pursuant to Presidential Proclamation No. 1234.

Protesting the adverse ecological impact of JAPEX’s oil exploration activities in the Tanon Strait, petitioners Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards aver that a study made after the seismic survey showed that the fish catch was reduced drastically from an average harvest of 15 to 20 kilos a day before the seismic survey to an average harvest of 1 to 2 kilos a day after such survey. They attributed the “reduced fish catch” to the destruction of the “payao”, also known as the “fish aggregating device” or “artificial reef”.

Issue:

Whether or not the Resident Marine Mammals and Stewards have locus standi to file the petition

Ruling:

The petition is granted. Resident Marine Mammals and the human petitioners have legal standing to file this petition.

The Court passed the landmark Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, which allow for a ”citizen suit”, and permit any Filipino citizen to file an action before our courts for violation of our environmental laws.

Sec. 5. Citizen suit. Any Filipino citizen in representation of others, including minors or generations yet unborn, may file an action to enforce rights or obligations under the environmental laws. Upon the filing of a citizen suit, the court shall issue an order which shall contain a brief description of the cause of action and the reliefs prayed for, requiring all interested parties to manifest their interest to intervene in the case within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The plaintiff may publish the order once in a newspaper of a general circulation in the Philippines or furnish all affected barangays copies of said order.

The Court, in the Annotations to the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, commented:

Citizen suit. To further encourage the protection of the environment, the Rules enable litigants enforcing environmental rights to file their cases as citizen suits. This provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of nature. The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran, insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.

Although this petition was filed in 2007, years before the effectivity of the Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases, it has been consistently held that rules of procedure “may be retroactively applied to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage and will not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, inasmuch as there is no vested rights in rules of procedure. This is an exception to the rule that the Rules shall be prospectively applied.

In Oposa v. Factoran, the suit was allowed to be brought to the Court in the name of generations yet unborn “based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.”

Thus, the need to give the Resident Marine Mammals legal standing has been eliminated by the Rules, which allow any Filipino citizen, as a steward of nature, to bring a suit to enforce our environmental laws. Since the Stewards are joined as real parties in the petition and not just in representation of the named cetacean species, they are therefore declared to possess the legal standing to file this petition.