Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > December 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 42441 December 22, 1934 - ILOILO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PANAY AUTOBUS COMPANY, ET AL.

061 Phil 116:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 42441. December 22, 1934.]

ILOILO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. PANAY AUTOBUS COMPANY, ET AL., Oppositors-Appellees.

B. Francisco for Appellant.

Juan Nabong for appellee I. Ledesma.

Montinola & Tirol for appellee Bilbao Garage & Taxicab.

No appearance for other appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE; RUINOUS COMPETITION. — Taking into consideration the fact that the population of the affected territory does not exceed 85,000 and that actually there are other public service trucks, garage cars and taxicabs, excluding horsedrawn carromatas or calesas, which are rendering adequate and efficient service to said inhabitants, Held: That the proposed autocalesa service will give rise to unlawful and ruinous competition with the operators of said existing services.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


This is an appeal taken by Iloilo Transportation Co., Inc., from the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission denying its application for a certificate of public convenience to operate one hundred (100) autocalesas within the territorial limits of the City of Iloilo and the neighboring municipalities of La Paz, Jaro, Mandurriao, Molo, Arevalo and Oton, including the suburbs or barrios thereof.

In case No. 36259 of the Public Service Commission, said appellant filed an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate within said territory one hundred (100) four-wheeled autocalesas, with authority to charge the following rates: Fifty centavos for every half hour; P1 for every hour; P0.60 for every successive hour; P0.05 for every passenger within the limits of Iloilo, La Paz, Jaro, Mandurriao and Molo; and P0.10 for every passenger from Iloilo to any of the municipalities of Arevalo and Oton, including any of the above stated intermediate towns. The autocalesas would be operated without any fixed route or time-table.

The application was opposed by Isabel Ledesma, the only appellee who filed her brief, Panay Autobus Company, Jovita Alfaras, all operators of truck services in the Province of Iloilo, Bilbao Garage & Taxicab, operator of another garage and taxicab service, and the associations of owners and drivers of horse drawn vehicles, which are rendering similar services in the City of Iloilo and in the neighboring towns of La Paz, Jaro, Mandurriao and Molo.

By agreement of the parties the justice of the peace of the City of Iloilo was commissioned to receive all evidence, which in fact was presented before him.

After carefully reviewing and weighing said evidence, the Public Service Commission rendered judgment holding that the proposed autocalesa service would not promote the interest or convenience of the inhabitants of the territory in question, and that its establishment would only constitute an unlawful and ruinous competition with the other public services already long established, consisting of autotrucks, garage cars, and taxicabs operated in the same territory, the former covering practically the entire Province of Iloilo.

In brief, the appellant contends that the commission erred in holding that the proposed service would not adequately or conveniently promote the interest of said inhabitants, and in denying its application.

We have carefully reviewed all the evidence presented and are convinced that the same clearly and reasonably supports the conclusion arrived at by the commission. If it is borne in mind that the population of the affected territory does not exceed 85,000, and that actually there are other public service trucks, garage cars and taxicabs, excluding horsedrawn carromatas or calesas, which are rendering adequate and efficient service to said inhabitants, it necessarily follows that the proposed autocalesa service will give rise to unlawful and ruinous competition with the operators of said existing services.

In support of its contention, the appellant cites some cases in which the commission granted certificates to operate autocalesas in the towns of Bacolod and Davao, but the doctrine laid down in said cases cannot be invoked as a precedent in this case where the facts and circumstances are substantially different.

Wherefore, finding that the appealed decision is sufficiently and reasonably supported by the evidence, the same is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. 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






December-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 42122 December 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENTES MOLDES

    061 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 40064 December 4, 1934 - RESURRECTION TAGARAO v. MARCOS GARCIA ET AL.

    061 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 41566 December 7, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAKAM, ET AL.

    061 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 42439 December 10, 1934 - ANTONIO LARENA v. PEDRO TEVES

    061 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 42517 December 10, 1934 - CRISANTO VILLAVIRAY v. CIRIACO ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    061 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. 40728 December 11, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOA MAKALANGAN

    061 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 42460 December 13, 1934 - EULOGIO MACALAYAC v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    061 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 37654 December 14, 1934 - ANTONIO FACTOR, ET AL. v. ISIDRA MANUEL, ET AL.

    061 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 42718 December 15, 1934 - JOSE MONTIAGUE v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA

    061 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 42301 December 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO HUBERO

    061 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 42750 December 17, 1934 - BENITO MANEJERO v. MARIANO BUYSON LAMPA

    061 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 38581 December 18, 1934 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. TIMOTEO ABARCA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. 41223 December 19, 1934 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. PEDRO COLETO

    061 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 42447 December 21, 1934 - FELIPE RODRIGUEZ v. VICENTE ZAMBRANO

    061 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 37521 December 22, 1934 - FRANCISCO MAGNO v. MONICA VIOLA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 39332 December 22, 1934 - OTENG BAGOBA, ET AL. v. TAN KIEM TA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 39641 December 22, 1934 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO SERAFICA, ET AL.

    061 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 41235 December 22, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ESCUDERO

    061 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 42441 December 22, 1934 - ILOILO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PANAY AUTOBUS COMPANY, ET AL.

    061 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 42878 December 22, 1934 - CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS, ET AL. v. QUINTIN PAREDES

    061 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. 40574 December 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARIA CABERO

    061 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 39533 December 29, 1934 - NICOLAS TRINIDAD v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA

    063 Phil 881