Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1935 > March 1935 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 42590 & 42591 March 23, 1935 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, ET AL.

061 Phil 227:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 42590 & 42591. March 23, 1935.]

PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents-Appellees.

Rivera & Bonifacio for Appellant.

L. D. Lockwood for appellee Pampanga Bus Company.

Ross, Lawrence & Selph for appellee Manila Electric Company.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; JOINT FARE SYSTEM. — The Public Service Commission has authority to find a public need and thereafter to approve a joint fare system.


D E C I S I O N


MALCOLM, J.:


These are applications of the Manila Electric Company and the Pampanga Bus Company for approval of a joint fare system. The Public Service Commission found, against the opposition of the Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., that the proposed joint fare system will be beneficial for those incoming and outgoing passengers who wish to avail themselves thereof, and such being the case, approved the applications as to the transfer point at the intersection of Blumentritt Street and Rizal Avenue in the City of Manila. From this decision the petitioner has brought the case here on review.

The Manila Electric Company operates a street railway and autobus transportation system within Manila and its suburbs. The Pampanga Bus Company operates an autobus transportation system between Manila and several provinces to the North. The Pasay Transportation Company, Inc., operates an autobus transportation system within Manila and its suburbs. The lines of the Manila Electric Company and the Pampanga Bus Company come in contact at the intersection of Blumentritt Street and Rizal Avenue in Manila. The purpose of the applications was to secure authority to enforce a joint fare system with transfers in relation to the point of contact of the lines as above indicated.

The representative of the Manila Electric Company in his testimony before the Public Service Commission gave a description of how the proposed joint fare would work. It was shown that such a system would serve the convenience of the public and would effect a saving in time and money for the public. Indeed this result is so self-evident as hardly to require evidence to support it. Being true, the Public Service Commission had authority to find a public need, and in accordance with the powers conferred on the commission, to make the necessary order. In other words, the case did not present imaginary benefits standing in contrast to real benefits; unfair and ruinous competition standing in contrast to lower rates and better service for the public, and an arbitrary and unreasonable decision standing in contrast to a fair and reasonable decision. Also the result was obtainable without being violate of the deed of sale entered into by the Pampanga Bus Company and the Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., for the reason that the Pampanga Bus Company has not asked for a certificate of public convenience.

Overruling the five assigned errors, the decision of the Public Service Commission will be confirmed, the petitioner to pay the costs of this instance.

Villa-Real, Imperial, 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






March-1935 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43107 March 2, 1935 - SIXTO F. ESQUIVIAS v. PEDRO MA. SISON

    061 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 41486 March 7, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDDAY BAGOBO

    061 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 42924 March 12, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO MORALES

    061 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 41423 March 19, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO TAMAYO

    061 Phil 225

  • G.R. Nos. 42590 & 42591 March 23, 1935 - PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, ET AL.

    061 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 41506 March 25, 1935 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO. v. FRANCISCO JARQUE

    061 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 42818 March 25, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO AGLAHI

    061 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. 41200 March 26, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO CU UNJIENG

    061 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 42767 March 26, 1935 - BALTAZAR ALANO v. TOMAS V. FLORIDO, ET AL.

    061 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 41746 March 27, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN SIOJO

    061 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 42744 March 27, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN BARRUGA

    061 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. 41873 March 28, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA ISLETA

    061 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 41595 March 29, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR MARAÑON

    061 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 42117 March 29, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO REYES

    061 Phil 341

  • G.R. No. 41674 March 30, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEDIOS DE LA CRUZ

    061 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 42115 March 30, 1935 - TEC BI & COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    061 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 42395 March 30, 1935 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN L. LARDIZABAL

    061 Phil 360