COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS VS.
THE BOARD OF judgment are to be exercised, either as to time or manner, the body entrusted with the
PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS
G.R. No. L-11216/ MAR 6, 1916 / MORELAND, J./ADMIN LAW-LEGISLATIVE
FUNCTION/JMPBATUHAN
NATURE Petition for Review of an Order of the Board
PETITIONERS Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas
RESPONDENTS Board of Public Utility Commissioners
SUMMARY. Compania General, a common carrier of passengers and merchandise by water,
was ordered by the Board to present a detailed report of its finances and operations, pursuant
to Act. No 2307, which granted the Board such authority. Compania asked the SC to review
such authority, which the Court held to be an undue delegation of legislative power, whereby
the Board was given too much discretion.
DOCTRINE. We believe that the Legislature, by the provision in question, has abdicated its
powers and functions in favor of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners with respect to
the matters therein referred to, and that such Act is in violation of the Act of Congress of July
1, 1902. We believe that the Legislature, by the provision referred to, has not asked for the
information which the State wants but has authorized the board to obtain the information
which the board wants.
FACTS.
 Petitioner is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Spain and engaged
in business in the Philippines as a common carrier of passengers and merchandise
by water. The Board dictated an order requiring petitioner to present a detailed
report of its finances and operations of its vessels in the Philippines in the form of
annual reports, upon hearing and service of an order for petitioner to show cause
why such reports should not be required of them.
 The Board relied on Sec. 16 of Act No. 2307 for its authority which states that:
o “the board shall have power, after hearing, upon notice, by order in
writing, to require every public utility as herein defined –
o (e) to furnish annually a detailed report of finances and operations, in
such form and containing such matters as the Boars may from time to
time by order prescribe.
 Petitioner questioned the Board’s authority on the ground that Act No. 2307 was
invalid as constituting an unlawful attempt on the part of Legislature to delegate
legislative power to the Board.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON there was a delegation of legislative power to the board – YES.
There was undue delegation of legislative power the board, as its exercise was
sufficiently provided for.
Act No. 2307 failed to lay down the general rules of action under which the Board
was to proceed, and did not prescribe in detail the contents of the reports it required.
Everything was left to the judgment and discretion of the Board rendering the Act
arbitrary, special legislation, and violative of the constitution. It did not indicate what
specific information the State required and instead authorized the Board to require
whatever information it wanted. This amounted to the Legislature’s abdication of its
powers and functions to the Board—as held in Birdsall vs Clark: if discretion and
duty must exercise it, and cannot delegate it to another.
The Legislature seems simply to have authorized "the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners to require what information the board wants. It would seem that the
Legislature, by the provision in question, delegated to the Board of Public Utility
Commissioners all of its powers over a given subjectmatter in a manner almost
absolute, and without laying down a rule or even making a suggestion by which that
power is to be directed, guided or applied.
As stated in Interstate Commerce Commission vs Goodrich Transit, “The Congress
may not delegate its purely legislative powers to a commission, but, having laid
down the general rules of action under which a commission shall proceed, it may
require of that commission the application of such rules to particular situations and
the investigation of facts, with a view to making orders in a particular matter within
the rules laid down by the Congress”. In that case, the general rules had been laid
down for the guidance of the commission, the latter only having to carry out the
details. This case illustrates the conferring of authority as to the execution of the law,
which is completely valid, as opposed to the delegation of the power to make the
law. Dowling vs Lancashire Insurance Co. furthers that the law must be complete, in
all its terms and provisions, when it leaves the legislature, so that, in form and
substance, it is a law in all its details, in presenti, but which may be left to take effect
in futuro. As held in Merchants Exchange vs Knott, in essence, the delegation of
legislative power is pure and simple despotism.
In the case at bar the provision complained of does not lay "down the general rules of
action under which the commission shall proceed," nor does it itself prescribe in
detail what those reports shall contain. Practically everything is left to the judgment
and discretion of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, which is unrestrained
as to when it shall act, why it shall act; how it shall act, to what extent it shall act, or
what it shall act upon.
We believe that the Legislature, by the provision in question, has abdicated its
powers and functions in favor of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners with
respect to the matters therein referred to, and that such Act is in violation of the Act
of Congress of July 1, 1902. We believe that the Legislature, by the provision
referred to, has not asked for the information which the State wants but has
authorized the board to obtain the information which the board wants.
DECISION.
The order appealed from is set aside and the cause returned to the Board with instruction to
dismiss.