Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

060 Phil 506:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 41534. August 31, 1934.]

M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent-Appellee.

Ohnick & Opisso and C. de G. Alvear for Appellant.

Jose C. Abreu for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE; "AUTO-CALESAS" ; CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. — Before the certificate applied for is granted, the applicant should sufficiently and reasonably establish that the proposed auto-calesa service will promote public convenience and necessity or redound to the benefit of the inhabitants of the locality, and before the new service is authorized, the rule already laid down in other similar cases, requiring the present operators to recondition and improve their service by increasing their equipment should the necessity and convenience of the inhabitants so demand, should be enforced.

2. ID.; ID.; RUINOUS COMPETITION. — In view of the reduced number of the inhabitants of the City of Baguio and the prospects and possibilities of their business, Held: That the operation of the proposed auto-calesa service will create between the present operators a ruinous competition which must be avoided.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


The Manila Railroad Company, operating an autotruck, garage and taxicab service in the City of Baguio and its suburbs, applied to the Public Service Commission for authority to operate another service of auto-calesas within the same territory, particularly between said city and the mining districts.

The application was opposed by the M. P. Transportation Co., Inc., another operator of autotrucks for passenger and freight service, with fixed lines in the Mountain Province and the Province of La Union. The grounds of the opposition were: That the applicant is not authorized under its franchise to operate and engage in the auto-calesa business and service; that the public necessity and convenience do not demand the establishment of the proposed new service; that, unlike Manila, the problem of substituting horsedrawn by other motor vehicles does not exist in the city of Baguio and its suburbs, and that the granting of the certificate prayed for would result in a ruinous competition between it and the applicant.

After hearing, the commission granted the applicant a certificate of public convenience to operate ten (10) units of three or four-wheeled auto-calesas with chassis and bodies similar to those used in the City of Manila, and a capacity of five (5) passengers including the driver, subject to the rate and other ordinary regulations stated in the decision. The oppositor appealed.

The commission declared that the necessity and convenience of the inhabitants of the City of Baguio and its suburbs would be better served by the auto-calesa service, basing its opinion mainly on the testimony of Casiano Rivera, superintendent of the Benguet Auto Line, who testified, in general terms, that the City of Baguio actually has about 10,000 inhabitants; that during the summer months they number approximately 30,000; that the laborers of the mining districts and the merchants residing thereabouts often come to the city and need this kind of cheap transportation, and that many of them cannot afford to pay the rates charged by other services, which is not less than fifty centavos (P0.50) a trip, in the case of garage cars.

Said witness, however, failed to mention the fact that at present the applicant is already operating in the City of Baguio and its suburbs an efficient service of midget taxicabs the rate of which is the usual ten and five centavos (P0.10 and 0.05).

Considering all the evidence which we have carefully examined, we hold that the same has not sufficiently or reasonably established the fact that the proposed auto-calesa service will promote public convenience and necessity or redound to the benefit of the inhabitants of said locality. Actually there is already in the same territory an efficient garage car, autotruck and midget taxicab service, the operators of which charge relatively low and very reasonable rates and we are at a loss to understand how the alleged public convenience and necessity in favor of the new service sought to be established can exist under such circumstance. Before this new service is authorized, we believe that the rule already laid down in other similar cases, requiring the present operators to recondition and improve their service by increasing their equipment should the necessity and convenience of the inhabitants so demand, should be enforced.

In view of the reduced number of the inhabitants of the territory and the prospects and possibilities of their business the court is of the opinion that the operation of the proposed auto-calesa service will create between the present operators a ruinous competition which must be avoided.

The appellant is now rendering an efficient autotruck service making trips between the City of Baguio and the mining districts, where there are many laborers, and the neighborhood where many merchants reside, and to maintain this service it is compelled to furnish material and laborers for the upkeep and repair of the roads leading to the mining districts. The applicant has not been rendering this aid and it seems clear that for such service the appellant is entitled in this particular case to have its interest protected and secured.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and it is held that the applicant is not entitled to the service applied for, with the costs of this instance against it. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte and Goddard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511