Case Digest: Pangasinan Transportation, Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, 70 Phil 221, G.R. No. 47065

 

Pangasinan Transportation, Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, 70 Phil 221, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

PANTRANCO, a holder of an existing Certificate of Public Convenience is applying to operate additional buses with the Public Service Commission (PSC) has been engaged in transporting passengers in certain provinces by means of public transportation utility. Patranc applied for authorization to operate 10 additional trucks. The PSC granted the application but added several conditions for PANTRANCO’s compliance. One is that the service can be acquired by government upon payment of the cost price less depreciation, and that the certificate shall be valid only for a definite period of time.

ISSUE

Whether or not PSC can impose said conditions, if so, wouldn’t this power of the PSC constitute an undue delegation of powers.

 RULING

Yes, there was valid delegation of powers.

The theory of the separation of 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 of subjects of 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.

The welfare and interest of the public are the paramount considerations in determining whether or not to temporarily take over a particular business. The State in effecting the temporary takeover is exercising its police power, which is the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers. Therefore, requiring the government to pay reasonable compensation for the reasonable use of the property pursuant to the operation of the business contravenes the Constitution.