the Meralco "On 31 July 1956, the Meralco filed its answer to the GAO's report, specifying its

objection,
and prayed that the cases be reset for hearing to enable the parties to present their proofs. Without
having (1) first reset the said 3 cases for hearing; (2) Without having given the Meralco an opportunity,
as requested by it, to cross-examine the officers of the GAO who prepared the report dated May 11,
1956, on which report the Commission based its decision; and (3) Without having given the Meralco an
opportunity, as requested by it, to present evidence in support of its answer to refute the facts alleged
in said report and controverted by Meralco, on 27 December 1957, the PSC handed down a decision,
granting the petition for the reduction of rates. The motion for reconsideration and to set aside
decision, filed on 14 January 1958 by Meralco, was denied by the Commission on a 2 to 1 vote, on 3
March 1958. Meralco filed the petition for review with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether the informal hearing held 22 June 1956 serves the purpose of proper notice and
hearing in administrative cases.

Held: The record shows that no hearing was held. On 22 June 1956, parties appeared before "Attorney
Vivencio L. Peralta, Technical Assistant, and Chief, Finance and Rate Division, Public Service Commission,
who was duly authorized to receive the evidence of the parties", and the record shows that the hearing
held before the said Commissioner was merely an informal hearing because, using his own words, "I said
at the beginning that this is only preliminary because I want that the parties could come to some kind of
understanding." Meralco has not been given its day in court. The decision of 27 December 1957 was not
promulgated "upon proper notice and hearing", as required by law, and that therefore it can not serve
as a legal basis for requiring the Meralco to put in effect the reductions ordered in the decision. It is the
cardinal right of a party in trials and administrative proceedings to be heard, which includes the right of
the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof and to
have such evidence presented considered by the tribunal. Even if the Commission is not bound by the
rules of judicial proceedings, it must how its head to the constitutional mandate that no person shall be
deprived of right without due process of law, which binds not only the government of the Republic, but
also each and everyone of its branches, agencies, etc. Due process of law guarantees notice and
opportunities to be heard to persons who would be affected by the order or act contemplated.