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
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46085   November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ<br /><br />066 Phil 454

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 46085. November 4, 1938.]

    BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ, Respondent.

    [G.R. No. 46086. November 4, 1938.]

    BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARCELO DIAZ, Respondent-Appellee.

    Guillermo B. Guevara and Rodolfo Palma, for Appellant.

    Juan Nabong, for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PUBLIC SERVICE; LIFTING OF RESTRICTIONS; PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. — In view of the facts stated in the court’s decision, Held: That the evidence of record supports the conclusions arrived at by the Public Service Commissioner, particularly on the point that the lifting of the restrictions imposed upon the respondents does not work to the prejudice of the petitioner, on the ground that there are a vast field and sufficient customers for all the three of them, and even for the others actually engaged in the same business on the same routes had by them; and also on the point that, in doing so, the public, which makes use of the autotrucks of the public service for its business and other necessities, would be more adequately served.

    2. ID.; ID.; ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE, SUSTAINED. — Following the already established rule that when an order or a decision of the Public Service Commission is reasonably supported by the evidence, it should be sustained instead of modified (San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Philippine Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal, 43 Phil., 328; Philippine Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commission, 51 Phil., 957; Gilles v. Halili, 38 Off. Gaz., 1988), the necessary and inevitable conclusion arrived at is that the lifting of the restrictions to which the respondents were subject, was and is in accordance with the law, as it was so held by the Public Service Commissioner in his judgment.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    Inasmuch as two cases of identical nature and related to each other are involved herein, and as the same question is raised in both, the above-entitled cases were heard jointly before the Public Service Commission and are likewise to be considered jointly in this instance.

    After the Public Service Commissioner had taken the evidence which the parties deemed advisable to present, he rendered judgment, as had been asked him, in favor of the respondents, lifting the restrictions imposed upon the certificates of public convenience issued to them respectively in the year 1929, in cases Nos. 20450 and 22478, and 28880 of the Public Service Commission, to authorize them to engage in the land transportation business by means of autotrucks, following the overruling of the oppositions presented against their application by the Pampanga bus Company, Inc., Pasay Transportation Company, Inc., Manila Electric Company, Manila Railroad Company, and Aurora V. Nerit, who, like the above-stated respondents, were also engaged in the same business. The Bulacan Bus Company, Inc., appealed from the decision of the Public Service Commissioner and assigns in its brief the following errors:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The Public Service Commission erred in not taking into account the increase in the number of buses operated by unrestricted operators along the restricted area as a natural and necessary consequence of the increase volume of traffic therein.

    "2. The Public Service Commission erred in holding that the lifting of the restrictions of the applicants is for the public convenience.

    "3. The Public Service Commission erred in holding that the lifting of applicants’ restrictions will not at all prejudice the oppositors because of the fact that the said applicants have been actually, although clandestinely and illegally, violating their restrictions.

    "4. The Public Service Commission erred in not nothing that the restricted area in question is now, as it has always been, adequately and satisfactory served by the oppositors.

    "5. The Public Service Commission erred not only in lifting the restrictions contained in the certificates of public convenience of the applicants but also in changing their time schedules."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The five errors above-quoted clearly raise the same question, to wit: whether or not the restrictions imposed upon the respondents should be lifted.

    Fernando Enriquez, the respondent in case G. R. No. 46085, is engaged in the land transportation business since 1929, and by virtue of his certificate of public convenience, he could make ten round trips daily between Masantol and Manila, via Macabebe and Apalit, and two round trips between Masantol and Guadalupe, via Manila. His business was subject to the restriction not to pick up or drop passengers within the distance of 55 kilometers from the municipality of Calumpit of Manila, and vice versa, via Pulilan, Plaridel, Guiguinto, Bigaa, Bocaue, Marilao, Meycauayan, Polo and Caloocan, and within the distance of 7.5 kilometers of his line from Manila to Guadalupe, and vice versa.

    Marcela Diaz, the respondent in case G. R. No. 46086, is likewise engaged in the land transportation business from the year 1929, and by virtue of his certificate of public convenience, he could make three round trips daily from the barrio of Santa Cruz of the municipality of San Luis to Manila. His business was subject to the restriction not to pick up passengers or freight at San Jose or in this city, or north of the same, with San Jose as destination. It was likewise subject to the restriction not to pick up passengers or freight at Tulano, for Manila, or at intermediate points and vice versa.

    The reasons which the Public Service Commissioner took into account in deciding the question in favor of the respondents, were as follows: (1) The great volume of traffic existing on their routes, which began to be constantly on the increase of few years after they had been granted their respective certificates of public convenience, which fact is not disputed by the petitioner because it is precisely the same reason invoked by it in asking said commissioner for the lifting of the restrictions which, in turn, existed on its certificate of public convenience, on February 26, 1938 (case No. 51309 of the Public Service Commission); and the same reason invoked by it shortly before, in seeking, as it in fact sought and was granted, an increase in the number of its autotrucks, so that it may now have 49 instead of only 39; (2) when the restrictions, the lifting of which is now under consideration, were imposed upon the respondents, the public convenience did not yet demand the service now demanded by it; (3) to maintain the restrictions imposed upon the respondents, as it has been so done to date, notwithstanding the fact that the circumstances and necessities of life have changed, is tantamount to discriminating between the respondents and the petitioner and the other companies which, together with the latter, opposed the application of the respondents, naturally to the prejudice of the respondents; (4) by lifting the restrictions imposed upon the respondents, they would be given the same opportunity as that now had by the petitioner, to serve the public, which would thereby be better served than it is now, because in this manner it would be saved the trouble of having to wait long, whenever it needs to go from one place to another, by using the autotrucks of the public service; (5) to avoid encounters or disputes which ordinarily and frequently take place when persons, who are not aware of the restrictions to which the respondents are subject, compel or force the latter to admit them into their autotrucks in order to go from one point to another on their route; and (6) to promote the public convenience or interest over the above the private interest of those engaged in the autotruck transportation business.

    The evidence of record supports the conclusions arrived at by the Public Service Commissioner, particularly on the point that the lifting of the restrictions imposed upon the respondents does not work to the prejudice of the petitioner, on the ground that there are a vast field and sufficient customers for all the three of them, and even for the others actually engaged in the same business on the same routes had by them; and also on the point that, in doing so, the public, which makes use of the autotrucks of the public service for its business and other necessities, would be more adequately served. In view of all the foregoing, and following the already established rule that when an order or a decision of the Public Service Commission is reasonably supported by the evidence, it should be sustained instead of modified (San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Philippine Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal, 43 Phil., 328; Philippine Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commission, 51 Phil., 957; Gilles v. Halili, 38 Off. Gaz., 1988), the necessary and inevitable conclusion arrived at by this court is that the lifting of the restrictions to which the respondents were subject, was and is in accordance with the law, as it was so held by the Public Service Commissioner in his judgment.

    Wherefore, the judgment of the Public Service Commissioner is affirmed in toto, and the petitioner is ordered to pay the costs in said two cases G. R. Nos. 46085 and 46086. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial and Laurel, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46085   November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ<br /><br />066 Phil 454


    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