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-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 46484   September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. <br /><br />068 Phil 652

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 46484. September 30, 1939.]

    SANTIAGO SAMBRANO, Petitioner, v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., and NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Respondents.

    Sixto Brillantes for Petitioner.

    L. D. Lockwood for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; REAL PARTY IN INTEREST. — The petitioner is not a real party in interest in this proceeding in the sense that he has a real interest herein because he showed he had none when case No. 52391 was yet being heard before the Public Service Commission. His failure to appear in said case during the various dates set for the hearing thereof, precisely so that he might state everything he wished to state in support of his opposition to the application of the respondents, could not and can not be interpreted otherwise. While it is true that the petitioner alleged in his opposition entitled "Manifestation" certain facts that seem really to give him a right of action, however, there is much difference between what is alleged and what is proved with facts, because a mere allegation does not prove anything and does not even constitute an evidence adverse to the person against whom it is presented.

    2. ID.; SALE OF LINES WITH THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION; PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. — It is to be noted that the transfer made by the former respondent to the latter was with the express approval of the Public Service Commission, upon observance of the formalities, prescribed in said paragraph (g) of section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, without any founded objection or protest on the part of any real party in interest. This being so, it appears clear that the petitioner had no right to institute this proceeding, not only for the reasons above-stated, but also under the ruling laid down in the case of Posas v. Toledo Transportation Co. (58 Phil., 390); his condition of being a Filipino citizen, who by chance may some- time avail of the services of the Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc. in the line in question, being insufficient, because, following the very opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States set forth in the case of Ex-parte Levitt (302 U. S. 633; 82 Law. ed., 493), such reason is insufficient to entitle him to invoke the judicial power to determine whether an action is valid or not. He must show, and he has not done so, that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, an injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all the members of the public. His interest must be of such nature as to be susceptible of valuation. On the other hand, we cannot review the ruling laid down by the commission because the party applying therefor is not affected by said decision. Furthermore there being, as there already was, an open road between Camalaniugan and Pamplona when the decision sought to be reviewed was rendered, and the commission having held that the public convenience demanded the establishment of said line, said order appears to be justified, and we are not authorized to substitute our judgment for that of the commission, by determining now, on our own account, whether or not the public convenience demands the establishment of said line, or whether or not the same should be placed in the hands of the respondent Northern Luzon Transportation Co. Inc.


    D E C I S I O N


    DIAZ, J.:


    This is a petition for the review of the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission in case No. 52391 of said commission, entitled "Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., and Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc., applicants", approving the sale made by the former company to the latter of the line that had been granted it, whereby it could engage in the land transportation business by means of auto buses, between Camalaniugan and Pamplona, of the Cagayan Valley. The petition alleges that the Public Service Commission, in rendering the decision in question, erred: (1) in accepting as valid the sale approved by it, and (2) in approving the sale.

    The facts held to have been established in the appealed decision and are furthermore inferred from the documents or exhibits mentioned therein are as follows: That when the respondents, in said case No. 62391, asked for the approval of the sale referred to therein, the commission ordered the petition of the respondents to be heard as in an ordinary trial at 9 o’clock a. m. on July 25, 1938, and at the same time directed that its order so rendered be published, as it was in fact published, in accordance with the provisions of section 20, paragraph (g), of Commonwealth Act No. 146, for the information of the public, for the period fixed therein; that the line which constituted the subject matter of the sale. that is, the one from Camalaniugan to Pamplona, for which they sought the commission’s approval, formed part of other lines which had been authorized and granted to the Interprovincial Transportation Company which had applied for them in case No. 22047; that shortly after said company had obtained the corresponding certificate of public convenience to have said lines, it sold the line from Camalaniugan to Pamplona to the respondent Red Line Transportation Co., Inc.; that the latter afterwards sold the same line to the Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc., which purchased other ten new auto buses to be assigned to its business on said line; that only after the hearing of case No. 52391 had been held, as previously announced, did the herein petitioner appear therein for the first time in order to file an undated pleading entitled "Manifestation", for the purpose of opposing the joint petition of the two respondents and that of the Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc., for permission to extend its line to Aparri, via Camalaniugan and Pamplona, and for authority to increase its equipment by other ten new buses; that the Public Service Commission, believing that the pleading filed by the petitioner was really an opposition, ordered the reopening of the case, setting it again for hearing, with the knowledge and consent of the parties including the petitioner, on August 12, 1938; that then the case was called for hearing on said date, it was agreed to postpone the hearing to the 16th, at the express petition of the petitioner and the respondents, each party then considering himself notified of said postponement; that, notwithstanding the same, when the case was again called for hearing on the 16th, the petitioner did not appear either by himself or by counsel, and that in view thereof, the commission overruled the petitioner’s opposition and later proceeded to render the decision appealed from.

    As a preliminary question, inasmuch as the respondents raise the same with an earnestness not devoid of reason, it should be determined first whether or not the petitioner has a right of action to institute this proceeding.

    Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. Section 36 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, in turn, provides that the orders, rulings or decisions of the Public Service Commission may be reviewed by the Supreme Court only on the application of any person or public service affected thereby, within the period, in the manner and under the conditions set forth therein.

    We do not believe the petitioner to be a party in interest in this proceeding in the sense that he has a real interest herein because he showed he had none when case No. 52391 was yet being heard before the Public Service Commission. His failure to appear in said case during the various dates set for the hearing thereof, precisely so that he might state everything he wished to state in support of his opposition to the application of the respondents, could not and can not be interpreted otherwise. While it is true that the petitioner alleged in his opposition entitled "Manifestation" certain facts that seem really to give him a right of action, however, there is much difference between what is alleged and what is proved with facts, because a mere allegation does not prove anything and does not even constitute an evidence adverse to the person against whom it is presented.

    It is to be noted that the transfer made by the former respondent to the latter was with the express approval of the Public Service Commission, upon observance of the formalities prescribed in said paragraph (g) of section 20 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, without any founded objection or protest on the part of any real party in interest. This being so, it appears clear that the petitioner bad no right to institute this proceeding, not only for the reasons above-stated, but also under the ruling laid down in the case of Posas v. Toledo Transportation Co. (58 Phil., 390); his condition of being a Filipino citizen, who by chance may sometime avail of the services of the Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc., in the line in question, being insufficient, because, following the very opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States set forth in the case of Ex-parte Levitt (302 U. S., 633; 82 Law. ed., 493), such reason is insufficient to entitle him to invoke the judicial Power to determine whether an action is valid or not. He must show, and he has not done so, that he has sustained, or is immediately in danger of sustaining, an injury as a result of that action, and it i; not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public. His interest must be of such nature as to be susceptible of valuation. On the other hand, we cannot review the ruling laid down by the commission because the party applying therefor is not affected by said decision. Furthermore, there being, as there already was, an open road between Camalaniugan and Pamplona when the decision sought to reviewed was rendered, and the commission having held that the public convenience demanded the establishment of ,said line, said order appears to be justified, and we are not authorized to substitute our judgment for that of the commission, by determining now, on our own account, whether or not the public convenience demands the establishment of said line, or whether or not the same should be placed in the hands of the respondent Northern Luzon Transportation Co., Inc.

    For all the foregoing, the aforesaid decision of the Public Service Commission is hereby affirmed, with the costs to the petitioner. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 46484   September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. <br /><br />068 Phil 652


    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