ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
September-1927 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 27484 September 1, 1927 - ANGEL LORENZO v. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

    050 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 26957 September 2, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIMEON YUSAY

    050 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 26360 September 7, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIBERTO CALLE

    050 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 27234 September 7, 1927 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    050 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 26659 September 9, 1927 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN SERNA

    050 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 26672 September 9, 1927 - PROCESO ECHARRI v. FELICIANO GOMEZ

    050 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. 27054 September 9, 1927 - MACARIA SOLIS v. CHUA PUA HERMANOS

    050 Phil 636

  • G.R. Nos. 26853-26855 September 10, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO UNDIANA

    050 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 27143 September 10, 1927 - QUINTILLANA SAMSON v. MANUEL CARRATALA

    050 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 27178 September 10, 1927 - TIMOTEO UNSON v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    050 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 27213 September 10, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINO S. TAN

    050 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. 27449 September 10, 1927 - CHUA PUA HERMANOS v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BATANGAS

    050 Phil 670

  • G.R. Nos. 26598 & 26599 September 17, 1927 - SIA SIMEON VELEZ v. RAMON CHAVES

    050 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 26671 September 17, 1927 - MUNICIPALITY OF ORION v. F. B. CONCHA

    050 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 27209 September 17, 1927 - ANDRES M. GABRIEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA

    050 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 27020 September 19, 1927 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. M. J. MCCUENE

    050 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 27498 September 20, 1927 - IN RE: JOSEFA TONGCO v. ANASTACIA VIANZON

    050 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 28320 September 20, 1927 - RUFO SAN JUAN v. PERFECTO ABORDO

    050 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 26849 September 21, 1927 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MARTINO TOMBIS TRIÑO

    050 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 26771 September 23, 1927 - RUPERTO SANTOS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    050 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 27180 September 24, 1927 - TEODORO DE CASTRO v. MARINO OLONDRIZ

    050 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 26538 September 27, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO SORIANO

    050 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 26844 September 27, 1927 - ISABEL FLORES v. TRINIDAD LIM

    050 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. 26941 September 27, 1927 - JUAN ARQUIZA LUTA v. MUNICIPALITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    050 Phil 748

  • G.R. No. 27048 September 27, 1927 - SILVESTRA BARON v. ANSELMO SAMPANG

    050 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. 27552 September 27, 1927 - MANILA MERCANTILE Co. v. MARIANO FLORES

    050 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 28117 September 27, 1927 - LORENZA SUÑGA v. FRANCISCO TINGIN

    050 Phil 766

  • G.R. No. 27110 September 28, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO MIANA

    050 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. 27120 September 28, 1927 - JUANA AGAPITO v. CANDIDO MOLO

    050 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 26708 September 29, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO RESABAL

    050 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. 27483 September 29, 1927 - ENCARNACION RAMOS v. JUSTO DUEÑO

    050 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. 27895 September 30, 1927 - CLEMENTE REYES v. PABLO BORBON

    050 Phil 791

  • G.R. No. 27040 September 29, 1927 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO GARALDE

    052 Phil 1000

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 26771   September 23, 1927 - RUPERTO SANTOS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION<br /><br />050 Phil 720

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 26771. September 23, 1927.]

    RUPERTO SANTOS, Petitioner, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

    Salinas & Salinas for Petitioner.

    Solicitor-General Reyes for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PUBLIC SERVICE LAW; COMPARISON OF THE FORMER PUBLIC UTILITY LAW, ACT No. 2307, DEFINING THE TERM "PUBLIC UTILITY" WITH THE PRESENT PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, ACT No. 3108, DEFINING THE TERM "PUBLIC SERVICE." — A comparison of the present Public Service Law, Act No. 3108, as amended by Act No. 3316, with the former Public Utility Law, Act No. 2307, as amended, discloses that the phrases "public services" and "public service" substitute and supersede the phrases "public utilities" and "public utility." While the old law in defining the term "public utility" included the phrase "for public use," these words are not to be found in the new law. The phrase "for hire or compensation" appearing in the new law does not appear in the old law.

    2. ID.; ID. — Under the old law, the concurrence of two things were necessary: (1) The individual, copartnership, etc. must be a "public utility;" and (2) the business in which such individual, copartnership, etc. is engaged must be for public use. Under the new law the concurrence of two things are necessary: (1) The individual, copartnership, etc. must be a "public service;" and (2) the business in which such individual, copartnership, etc. is engaged must be for hire or compensation.

    3. ID.; ID. — It is here held that within the meaning either of the old law or the new law "El Tren de Aguadas" is dedicated to the operation of a water system, and that this service is for public use or for hire or compensation. As a consequence, it is further held that "El Tren de Aguadas" comes under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.


    D E C I S I O N


    MALCOLM, J.:


    In this petition for review, the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission over the business known as "El Tren de Aguadas" which supplies water to ships in the Pasig River and Manila Bay. A decision on this issue depends in turn on whether or not "El Tren de Aguadas" is a "public utility" or "public service" within the meaning of those terms as defined in the Public Utility and Public Service Laws.

    The record discloses that "El Tren de Aguadas" was organized in the City of Manila in 1894 as "una sociedad de cuentas en participacion." Apparently it only came under the observation of the former Public Utility Commission on May 25, 1920, when a complaint was filed against the business on the ground that it had a number of times refused to serve the motorship "Andalucia." "El Tren de Aguadas" answered this charge satisfactorily without any effort being made to avoid the authority of the Commission. On June 24th of the same year, the Commission required "El Tren de Aguadas" to submit to it a tariff of its water service in conformity with the law. To this "El Tren de Aguadas" responded by submitting its list of charges which was approved by the Commission on September 9, 1920. On October 1, 1920, "El Tren de Aguadas" proposed an amendment to its tariff which, after a further amendment, was approved by an order of the Commission on October 27, 1920. It was not until the 8th of June, 1921, that "El Tren de Aguadas" asked that it be exempted from submitting to the jurisdiction of the Commission. The matter was allowed to languish until more than five years later when a decision was handed down by the Public Utility Commission denying the petition, and, as a consequence, ordering that the business "El Tren de Aguadas" observe the regulations of the Commission, render the corresponding reports, and solicit without delay the proper Certificate of Public Convenience.

    By placing the old law defining the term "public utility" side by side with the new law defining the term "public service," the differences between the two will be graphically illustrated.

    Act No. 2307, section 14, Act No. 3108, section 13,

    as amended by Act No. as amended by Act No.

    2694, section 9, provided 3316, superseding Act No.

    the following: 2307, as amended, provides

    "The Public Utility Com- the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    mission or Commissioner "The Commission shall

    shall have general supervi- have general supervision and

    sion and regulation of, juris -regulation of, jurisdiction

    diction and control over, all and control over, all public

    public utilities, and also services, and also over their

    over their property, prop- property, property rights,

    erty rights, equipment, fa- equipment, facilities and

    cilities and franchises so far franchises so far as may be

    as may be necessary for the necessary for the purposes of

    purpose of carrying out the carrying out the provisions

    provisions of this Act. The of this Act. The term ’public

    term ’public utility’ is service’ is hereby defined

    hereby defined to include to include every individual,

    every individual, copart- copartnership, association,

    nership, association, corpo- corporation, or joint-stock

    ration or joint stock company, whether domestic

    company, whether domestic or foreign, their lessees,

    or foreign, their lessees, trustees, or receivers ap-

    trustees or receivers ap- pointed by any court

    pointed by any court what- whatsoever, or any munic-

    soever, or any municipality, ipality, province, or other

    province or other depart- department of the Gov-

    ment of the Government of ernment of the Philip-

    the Philippine Islands, that pine Islands, that now or

    now or hereafter may own, hereafter may own,

    operate, manage or control operate, manage, or control within

    within the Philippine Is- the Philippine Islands, for

    lands any common carrier, hire or compensation, any

    railroad, street railway, common carrier, railroad,

    traction railway, steamboat street railway, traction rail-

    or steamship line, small way, subway, freight or

    water craft, such as bancas, passenger motor vehicles,

    virais, lorchas, and others, with or without fixed route,

    engaged in the transporta- freight or any other car

    tion of passengers and service, express s e r v i c e,

    cargo, line of freight and steamboat or steamship line,

    passenger automobiles, ship- ferries, small water craft,

    yard, marine railway, ma- such as lighters, pontines,

    rine repair shop, ferry, lorchas, and others. engaged

    freight or any other car in the transportation of pas-

    service, public warehouse, sengers or cargo, shipyard,

    public wharf or dock not marine railway, marine re-

    under the jurisdiction of the pair shop, public warehouse,

    Insular Collector of Cus- public wharf or dock not

    toms, ice, refrigeration, cold under the jurisdiction of the

    storage, canal, irrigation, Insular Collector of Cus-

    express, subway, pipe line, toms, ice, refrigeration,

    gas, electric light, heat, canal, irrigation, pipe line,

    power, water, oil, sewer, tel- gas, electric light, heat,

    ephone, wire or wireless power, water, oil, sewer, tel-

    telegraph system, plant or ephone, wire or wireless

    equipment, for public use: telegraph system, plant or

    . . . ." equipment: . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It will first be observed that the phrases "public services" and "public service" substitute and supersede the phrases "public utilities" and "public utility." It will next be observed that while the old law in defining the term "public utility" included the phrase "for public use," these words are not to be found in the new law. It will further be observed that the phrase "for hire or compensation" appearing in the new law does not appear in the old law. Under the old law, the concurrence of two things were necessary: (1) The individual, copartnership, etc. must be a "public utility;" and (2) the business in which such individual, copartnership, etc. is engaged must be for public use. (Villanueva, The Public Service Law, pp. 23 et seq.; U. S. v. Tan Piaco [1920], 40 Phil., 853; Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility Board [1923], 44 Phil., 551.) Under the new law, the concurrence of two things are necessary: (1) The individual, copartnership, etc. must be a "public service;" and (2) the business in which such individual, copartnership, etc. is engaged must be for hire or compensation. Whether the Legislature could properly provide for such a qualification by supplanting "public use" with "hire or compensation" is not touched upon in this case, and need not, therefore, be discussed.

    Within the meaning either of the old law or the new law, it is indisputable that "El Tren de Aguadas" is dedicated to the operation of a water system, and that this service is for public use or for hire or compensation. Otherwise formulated, there is evidence supporting the con- elusions of the Commissioner to this effect. The following may be noted: (1) "El Tren de Aguadas" voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commission; (2) according to the testimony of Ruperto Santos, a former employee of the concern, "El Tren de Aguadas" appears to have sold water from its water boat to practically every person who desired to purchase it, including about forty entities; and (3) in a letter from the petitioner dated October 1, 1920, it was said: "Therefore, aside from the five shipping companies of this city with which the client has contracted for drinking water service, the preceding graduated tariff shall still be imposed upon any other private individual or juridical entity to which drinking water may be served by the launch ’El Tren de Aguadas.’"

    For all the foregoing considerations, there is no escaping the conclusion that "El Tren de Aguadas" is included in the term "public utility" as formerly defined by the Public Utility Law, and in the term "public service" as now defined by the Public Service Law, and as a consequence, comes under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.

    Wherefore, the decision brought here on review is confirmed, with the costs of this instance against the petitioner.

    Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 26771   September 23, 1927 - RUPERTO SANTOS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION<br /><br />050 Phil 720


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED