Scribd
Upload
83 views2 pages

Facts: For Certiorari Is A Civil Aeronautics Board: Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat (29 April 1971)

The Civil Aeronautics Board approved some flights in Philippine Air Lines' proposed flight schedule known as Domestic Traffic Schedule 35. Air Manila alleged its procedural due process rights were violated as the approved flights saturated its routes and affected its schedule. The Supreme Court held that no procedural due process violation occurred as Air Manila was afforded notice, a hearing, an unbiased tribunal, and the decision was supported by evidence. The Board approved the flights in light of public convenience and necessity.

Uploaded by

Arlet Chua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
83 views2 pages

Facts: For Certiorari Is A Civil Aeronautics Board: Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat (29 April 1971)

The Civil Aeronautics Board approved some flights in Philippine Air Lines' proposed flight schedule known as Domestic Traffic Schedule 35. Air Manila alleged its procedural due process rights were violated as the approved flights saturated its routes and affected its schedule. The Supreme Court held that no procedural due process violation occurred as Air Manila was afforded notice, a hearing, an unbiased tribunal, and the decision was supported by evidence. The Board approved the flights in light of public convenience and necessity.

Uploaded by

Arlet Chua
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Air Manila, Inc. vs.

Balatbat (29 April 1971)

Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat (29 April 1971)


Post under case digests, labor law at Wednesday, February 22, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind

Facts: For certiorari is a Civil Aeronautics Board


resolution (CAB Resolution No. 139(68)) that approved
some of the seven flights in the proposed flight
schedule of Philippine Air Lines known as Domestic
Traffic Schedule 35 (DTS-35). The said flight
scheduleincluded renewal of flights previously approved
and new flights/frequencies. New flights not granted
temporary approval were resolved to be heard by a
hearing examiner to ascertain economic justification.
Petitioner Air Manila, Inc. alleged, inter alia, that its right to
procedural due process was not given consideration by
the Board. It claims that issuance of the subject
resolution saturatedAMI's routes and affected
its schedule.

Issue: Whether or not procedural due process was


violated by CAB, therefore resulting in grave abuse of
discretion

Held: NO. Administrative due process includes: (1) right to


notice; (2) reasonable opportunity to be heard; (3) an
unbiased tribunal; and (4) a decision supported by
substantial evidence. No evidence revealing violation any
of the aforementioned procedure was shown. The hearing
for flights in DTS-35 not previously approved commenced
and resulted in the temporary approval three or four of
the proposed flights.
Of paramount consideration is public convenience and
necessity. The Board exercised its power and approved
the said flights in light of good service.

You might also like