FACTS: In an alleged letter-petition, petitioner was charged
with black market of electric meters and that its meters were installed in bad
faith to register excessive rates. Petitioner received a communication from
General Auditing Office (GAO) that it will be audited. PSC issued subsequently
a subpoena duces tecum requiring petitioners to produce before PSC, during a
conference scheduled for April 10, 1962, certain book of accounts. Petitioner
moved to quash such subpoena. The conference was postponed twice until it was
finally cancelled. In May 1962, PSC issued an order, which after finding that
petitioner had an excess of revenues by 18%, lowered the present meter rates of
petitioner. Hence, this petition for certiorari is instituted.
ISSUE: WON notice and
hearing is required
RULING: Yes.
In support to its special defense, respondent PSC
maintains that rate-fixing is a legislative function; that legislative or
rule-making powers may constitutionally be exercised without previous notice or
hearing. Although the rule-making power and even the power to fix rates – when such are meant to apply to all enterprises
of a given kind throughout the Philippines – may partake of legislative
character, such is not the nature of the order complained of. Here, the
order exclusively applies to petitioner. What is more, it is predicated upon
the finding of fact, whether the petitioner is making a profit more than 12% of
its invested capital which is denied by the petitioner. Obviously, the latter
is entitled to cross-examine the maker of the said report, and to introduce
evidence to disprove the contents thereof and/or explain or complement the same,
as well as to refute the conclusions drawn therefrom by the respondent. In
other words, in making said finding of
fact, respondent performed a function partaking of a quasi-judicial character,
the valid exercise of which demands previous notice and hearing.
Indeed, Sections 16(c) and 20 (a) of CA No. 146, explicitly
require notice and hearing.
Wherefore, we hold that the
determination of the issue involved in the order complained of partakes the
nature of quasi-judicial function and that, having been issued without previous
notice and hearing, said order is clearly violative of the due process clause,
and hence, null and void.
No comments:
Post a Comment