PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., v. PSC (2) NO. Section 8 of Article XIII (now Sec. 11, Art.

XII
of the 1987 Constitution) states that "no franchise or
FACTS: right shall be granted to any individual, firm, or
corporation, except under the condition that it shall
This is a petition for writ of certiorari under R. 65.
be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by
Petitioner has been engaged in the business of
the National Assembly when the public interest so
transporting passengers by means of motor vehicles
requires." When private property is "affected with a
known as TPU Buses. Petitioner filed with PSC an
public interest it ceased to be juris privati only."
application for authorization to operate 10
When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use
additional new trucks. It was granted but under 2
in which the public has an interest, he, in effect,
conditions: they were to comply with the terms and
grants to the public an interest in that use, and must
conditions of its existing certificates and as a result
submit to be controlled by the public for the
of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law. Not
common good, to the extent of the interest he has
being agreeable to the 2 new conditions, petitioner
thus created. Moreover, statutes enacted for the
filed a motion for reconsideration which was
regulation of public utilities, being a proper exercise
denied, hence this petition. Petitioner contended
by the state of its police power, are applicable not
that (A) the legislative powers granted to the PSC
only to those public utilities coming into existence
by CA 454 is without limitation, guide, or rule except
after its passage, but likewise to those already
for discretion and judgment of the commission thus
established and in operation.
void and (B) even if it was a valid delegation of
legislative powers, the PSC exceeded its authority
because CA454 applies only to future certificates
and not to valid, subsisting ones issued prior June 8
1939 ergo invalid.

ISSUES:

(1) Does the granting of legislative powers without

limitation or guide by CA 454 to PSC constitute an
abdication by the Legislature of its functions, ergo
void?

(2) Does CA 454 apply only to future certificates?

HELD:

(1) NO. Under section 16 (a) of Commonwealth

Act. No. 146 which is a complement of section 15,
the Commission is empowered to issue certificates
of public convenience whenever it "finds that the
operation of the public service proposed and the
authorization to do business will promote the public
interests in a proper and suitable manner." Further,
all that has been delegated to the Commission,
therefore, is the administrative function, involving
the use 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 fact that the National
Assembly may itself exercise the function and
authority thus conferred upon the Public Service
Commission does not make the provision in
question constitutionally objectionable.
ANG TIBAY v. CIR bodies, due process can be complied with by
observing the following:
FACTS:

Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a

leather company which supplies the Philippine
Army. Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio
caused the layoff of a number of his employees.
However, the National Labor Union, Inc. (NLU)
questioned the validity of said lay off as it averred
that the said employees laid off were members of
NLU while no members of the rival labor union
(National Worker’s Brotherhood) were laid off. NLU
claims that NWB is a company dominated union
and Toribio was merely busting NLU.
The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations
(CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU
went to the Supreme Court invoking its right for a
new trial on the ground of newly discovered
evidence. The Supreme Court agreed with NLU. The
Solicitor General, arguing for the CIR, filed a motion
for reconsideration.
(1) The right to a hearing which includes the right
of the party interested or affected to present his
own case and submit evidence in support thereof.
(2) Not only must the party be given an
opportunity to present his case and to adduce
evidence tending to establish the rights which he
asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose
the obligation to decide right, it does imply a
necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely,
that of having something to support its decision. A
decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a
nullity, a place when directly attached.

ISSUE:
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to
Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is
support a finding or conclusion but the evidence
entitled to a new trial.
must be “substantial.” Substantial evidence is more
than a mere scintilla It means such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
HELD: Yes. The records show that the newly adequate to support a conclusion.
discovered evidence or documents obtained by
NLU, which they attached to their petition with the
SC, were evidence so inaccessible to them at the
(5) The decision must be rendered on the
time of the trial that even with the exercise of due
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
diligence they could not be expected to have
contained in the record and disclosed to the
obtained them and offered as evidence in the
parties affected.
Court of Industrial Relations. Further, the attached
documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching
importance and effect that their admission would
necessarily mean the modification and reversal of (6) The administrative body or any of its judges,
the judgment rendered (said newly obtained therefore, must act on its or his own independent
records include books of business/inventory consideration of the law and facts of the
accounts by Ang Tibay which were not previously controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
accessible but already existing). subordinate in arriving at a decision.

The SC also outlined that administrative bodies, like

the CIR, although not strictly bound by the Rules of
(7) The administrative body should, in all
Court must also make sure that they comply to the
controversial questions, render its decision in such a
requirements of due process. For administrative
manner that the parties to the proceeding can
know the various issues involved, and the reasons
for the decisions rendered. The performance of this
duty is inseparable from the authority conferred
upon it.
ABAKADA v Ermita
Facts:
Petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List challenged
the constitutionality of R.A. No. 9337 particularly
Sections 4, 5 and 6, amending Sections 106, 107
and 108, respectively, of the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC). These questioned provisions
contain a uniform proviso authorizing the President,
upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,
to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1,
2006, after any of the following conditions have
been satisfied, to wit:
. . . That the President, upon the recommendation
of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January
1, 2006, raise the rate of value-added tax to twelve
percent (12%), after any of the following conditions
has been satisfied:
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year
exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%); or
(ii) National government deficit as a percentage of
GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-
half percent (1 ½%).
Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as
it constitutes abandonment by Congress of its
exclusive authority to fix the rate of taxes under
Article VI, Section 28(2) of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. They further argue that VAT is a tax
levied on the sale or exchange of goods and
services and cannot be included within the purview
of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this
refers to customs duties, tolls or tribute payable
upon merchandise to the government and usually
imposed on imported/exported goods. They also
said that the President has powers to cause,
influence or create the conditions provided by law
to bring about the conditions precedent. Moreover,
they allege that no guiding standards are made by
law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make
the recommendation. They claim, nonetheless, that
any recommendation of the Secretary of Finance
can easily be brushed aside by the President since
the former is a mere alter ego of the latter, such
that, ultimately, it is the President who decides
whether to impose the increased tax rate or not.
Issues:
1. Whether or not R.A. No. 9337 has violated
the provisions in Article VI, Section 24, and
Article VI, Section 26 (2) of the Constitution.
2. Whether or not there was an undue
delegation of legislative power in violation
of Article VI Sec 28 Par 1 and 2 of the
Constitution.
3. Whether or not there was a violation of the
due process and equal protection under
Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
Ruling:
1) Basing from the ruling of Tolentino case, it is
not the law, but the revenue bill which is
required by the Constitution to “originate
exclusively” in the House of Representatives,
but Senate has the power not only to
propose amendments, but also to propose
its own version even with respect to bills
which are required by the Constitution to
originate in the House. What the Constitution
simply means is that the initiative for filing
revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an
increase of the public debt, private bills and
bills of local application must come from the
House of Representatives on the theory that,
elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to
be more sensitive to the local needs and
problems. On the other hand, the senators,
who are elected at large, are expected to
approach the same problems from the
national perspective. Both views are thereby
made to bear on the enactment of such
laws. R.A. No. 9337 has not violated the
provisions. The revenue bill exclusively
originated in the House of Representatives,
the Senate was acting within its
 constitutional power to introduce showing of unreasonableness,
amendments to the House bill when it discrimination, or arbitrariness.
included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950
amending corporate income taxes,
percentage, excise and franchise taxes.
Verily, Article VI, Section 24 of the
Constitution does not contain any
prohibition or limitation on the extent of the
amendments that may be introduced by
the Senate to the House revenue bill.

2) In testing whether a statute constitutes an

undue delegation of legislative power or
not, it is usual to inquire whether the statute
was complete in all its terms and provisions
when it left the hands of the legislature so
that nothing was left to the judgment of any
other appointee or delegate of the
legislature. There is no undue delegation of
legislative power but only of the discretion
as to the execution of a law. This is
constitutionally permissible. Congress does
not abdicate its functions or unduly
delegate power when it describes what job
must be done, who must do it, and what is
the scope of his authority; in our complex
economy that is frequently the only way in
which the legislative process can go
forward.

3) The equal protection clause under the

Constitution means that “no person or class
of persons shall be deprived of the same
protection of laws which is enjoyed by other
persons or other classes in the same place
and in like circumstances.” Supreme Court
held no decision on this matter. The power
of the State to make reasonable and
natural classifications for the purposes of
taxation has long been established.
Whether it relates to the subject of taxation,
the kind of property, the rates to be levied,
or the amounts to be raised, the methods of
assessment, valuation and collection, the
State’s power is entitled to presumption of
validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not
interfere with such power absent a clear