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
 

   
May-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1674 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO SOMERA

    083 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-1765 May 9, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO TANDUG

    083 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-1881 May 9, 1949 - MANILA TERMINAL COMPANY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-1512 May 12, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FEDERICO

    083 Phil 569

  • G.R. No. L-1900 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO LACSON

    083 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-2064 May 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO TORRES

    083 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-1769 May 13, 1949 - PURITA PANAGUITON v. FLORENTINO PATUBO

    083 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-1833 May 13, 1949 - MEDARDO MUÑOZ v. EMILIO RILLORAZA

    083 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-792 May 14, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. E.C. CAÑADA

    083 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. L-1429 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO AQUINO Y ABALOS

    083 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. L-1950 May 16, 1949 - LAO SENG HIAN v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. L-2014 May 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN Z. YELO

    083 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. L-1212 May 18, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CELESTINO BASA Y OTROS

    083 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. L-1918 May 18, 1949 - PEDRO L. FLORES v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO

    083 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-2484 May 18, 1949 - LEE KO v. DIONISIO DE LEON

    083 Phil 628

  • G.R. No. L-2117 May 19, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO SOMBILON

    083 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. L-1471 May 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN ORAZA

    083 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-1917 May 20, 1949 - CATALINO MAGLASANG v. CIRILO C. MACEREN

    083 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-2245 May 20, 1949 - AMBROSIO CARBUNGCO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    083 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-2831 May 20, 1949 - BERNARDO TORRES v. MAMERTO S. RIBO

    083 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-432 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO CALINAWAN

    083 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-1795-6 May 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO VALDEZ

    083 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-1989 May 23, 1949 - JOSE REYES y RAMIREZ v. EL TRIBUNAL DE APELACION

    083 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. L-2203 May 23, 1949 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. LA CORTE DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2431 May 23, 1949 - CEFERINO TAVORA v. PEDRO OFIANA

    083 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. 213 May 24, 1949 - GENEROSA A. DIA v. FINANCE & MINING INVESTMENT CORP.

    083 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. L-1700 May 24, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MINTU

    083 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. L-2004 May 24, 1949 - PABLO COTAOCO v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN

    083 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-2251 May 24, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ELISA TANDAG

    083 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-1980 May 25, 1949 - CIPRIANO SEVILLA v. CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS

    083 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. L-944 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTO AVILA

    083 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-1823 May 26, 1949 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. ARTEMIO ELEPAÑO

    083 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-1825 May 26, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EUGENIO BERSIDA

    083 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-2022 May 26, 1949 - GUIA S. J0SE DE BAYER v. ERNESTO OPPEN

    083 Phil 700

  • G.R. No. L-2161 May 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES YOUNG

    083 Phil 702

  • G.R. No. L-2323 May 26, 1949 - M. A. ZARCAL v. S. HERRERO

    083 Phil 711

  • G.R. Nos. L-675 & L-676 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO LASTIMOSO

    083 Phil 714

  • G.R. No. L-1274 May 27, 1949 - PHIL. TRANSIT ASSN. v. TREASURER OF MANILA

    083 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. L-1394 May 27, 1949 - RAFAEL ROA YROSTORZA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 727

  • G.R. No. L-1861 May 27, 1949 - RIZAL SURETY AND INSURANCE CO. v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. L-1869 May 27, 1949 - JOSE PIO BARRETTO v. N. ALMEDA LOPEZ

    083 Phil 734

  • G.R. No. L-2300 May 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO TUMAOB

    083 Phil 738

  • G.R. No. L-2382 May 27, 1949 - PABLO S. RIVERA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. L-1606 May 28, 1949 - IN RE: YEE BO MANN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. L-2309 May 28, 1949 - LOPE SARREAL v. SOTERO RODAS

    083 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-2518 May 28, 1949 - DONATA OLIVEROS DE TAN v. ENGRACIO FABRE

    083 Phil 755

  • G.R. No. L-2539 May 28, 1949 - JOSE P. MONSALE v. PAULINO M. NICO

    083 Phil 758

  • G.R. No. L-1511 May 30, 1949 - MIGUEL OJO v. JOSE V. JAMITO

    083 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-1550 May 30, 1949 - IN RE: FREDERICK EDWARD GILBERT ZUELLIG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    083 Phil 768

  • G.R. No. L-1609 May 30, 1949 - REMIGIO M. PEÑA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    083 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-1686 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SANTOS TOLEDO

    083 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-1723 May 30, 1949 - LUZ MARQUEZ DE SANDOVAL v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    083 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-1978 May 30, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANTONIO ORCULLO Y OTROS

    083 Phil 787

  • G.R. No. L-1996 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALIP JULMAIN

    083 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-2031 May 30, 1949 - HERMOGENES C. LIM v. RESTITUTO L. CALAGUAS

    083 Phil 796

  • G.R. No. L-2069 May 30, 1949 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. LUZON LABOR UNION

    083 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. L-2083 May 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MALIG

    083 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-2098 May 30, 1949 - PIO MARQUEZ v. ARSENIO PRODIGALIDAD

    083 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-2099 May 30, 1949 - JOSE ONG v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-2130 May 30, 1949 - FRANCISCO SANCHEZ v. PEDRO SERRANO

    083 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. L-2132 May 30, 1949 - JUAN SAVINADA v. J. M. TUASON & CO.

    083 Phil 840

  • G.R. No. 49102 May 30, 1949 - W.C. OGAN v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    083 Phil 844

  • G.R. No. L-1104 May 31, 1949 - EASTERN THEATRICAL CO. v. VICTOR ALFONSO

    083 Phil 852

  • G.R. Nos. L-1264 & L-1265 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SAGARIO

    083 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-1271 May 31, 1949 - BENIGNO DEL RIO v. CARLOS PALANCA TANGUINLAY

    083 Phil 867

  • G.R. No. L-1281 May 31, 1949 - JOSEPH E. ICARD v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    083 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-1298 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SANTOS BALINGIT

    083 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-1299 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACOB J. LOEWINSOHN

    083 Phil 882

  • G.R. No. L-1827 May 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO

    083 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-1927 May 31, 1949 - CRISTOBAL ROÑO v. JOSE L. GOMEZ

    083 Phil 890

  • G.R. No. L-1952 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO R. VlLLAROMAN v. FLORENTINO J. TECHICO

    083 Phil 901

  • G.R. No. L-2108 May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    083 Phil 905

  • G.R. No. L-2252 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BEDIA

    083 Phil 909

  • G.R. No. L-2253 May 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO MANIEGO

    083 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-2283 May 31, 1949 - MARINA TAYZON and FLORDELIZA G. ANGELES v. RAMON YCASIANO

    083 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-2326 May 31, 1949 - FERNANDO ALEJO v. MARIANO GARCHITORENA

    083 Phil 924

  • G.R. No. L-2351 May 31, 1949 - FRANCISCO ARGOS v. DOMINADOR VELOSO

    083 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-2377 May 31, 1949 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JUSTA G. VDA. DE GUIDO

    083 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-2450 May 31, 1949 - VERONICA RUPERTO v. CEFERINO FERNANDO

    083 Phil 943

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2108   May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA<br /><br />083 Phil 905

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-2108. May 31, 1949.]

    PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. LUIS G. ABLAZA and THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.

    Manuel O. Chan & Vicente Ampil for Petitioner.

    Roman A. Cruz for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PUBLIC UTILITIES; ATOMIC TENDENCY IS TO DO AWAY WITH THE OLD SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SERVICE OPERATION. — Conversion of a regular into an irregular operation, a decidedly backward step in the promotion of a transportation service, is to be avoided. Gone are the days of the irregular operation, an excusable evil in the infancy of the auto-truck transportation business but certainly an anachronism now after more than thirty years of State reglementation. At least no necessity has been shown for reverting the old system.

    2. ID.; DIRECT SERVICE THROUGH AUTHORIZED LINES PREFERRED. — It could not possibly have been the intention to grant respondent authority to switch trucks at any point where two or more of its authorized lines cross inasmuch as such practice would subject passengers who take a truck at a given starting point to great inconvenience if they were required to transfer to another truck at a crossing point so that the truck which they originally boarded might be able to transfer to another line and proceed to a different terminal point. The authority to transfer of exchange cars from one line to another necessarily refers to cars or buses which upon reaching the terminal point of an authorized line are empty, in which case their transfer to another line or a portion of that line would not cause inconvenience to any passenger.

    3. ID.; AUTHORITY TO OPERATE IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO REVOKE IF ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED. — Only a certificate an express authority issued by the commission could vest in an operator the right to operate on a given line, so that the mere user of authority which is erroneously supposed to have been granted, even when tolerated by the commission, cannot ripen into a right that is beyond the power of the commission to revoke when the error is discovered.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:


    This is a petition to review and set aside a decision of the Public Service Commission.

    The facts are not in dispute. Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., (hereinafter called the (Company) and Luis G. Ablaza are competing operators of auto-truck service. Ablaza’s line is Manila-Hagonoy via Malolos, where he is authorized to operate five direct trips a day each way. We gather that "direct trips" mean through service, i. e., without transfer from one bus to another between terminals. The company has no express authority to conduct that mode of operation on Ablaza’s line, although it is authorized to make trips between Manila and Malolos and also between Hagonoy and San Rafael via Malolos. For easy comprehension of the situation, it should be said that the Hagonoy-San Rafael line crosses the Manila-Malolos line at Malolos, and, roughly speaking, the two lines form a T.

    On January 28, 1948, Ablaza complained to the Public Service Commission that the company had encroached on his line by making direct trips between Manila and Hagonoy without authority. Answering the complaint, the company denied the alleged lack of authority and claimed that the operation objected to had long received special sanction. Deciding the controversy, the commission ruled that the company "has no authority, either by virtue of a certificate of public convenience or other form of authorization, to operate a direct TPU service from Hagonoy to Manila via Malolos, but it may, when operating its Manila-Malolos line, transfer any of its trucks to the Malolos-Hagonoy line but only when there is extraordinary heavy traffic between Malolos and Hagonoy."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is this ruling that is now before us for review, and the question for resolution is whether or not the commission erred in holding that the company is not authorized to operate a direct service between Manila and Hagonoy via Malolos.

    In claiming authority for a direct service on this line, the company calls attention to a certificate of public convenience acquired by it, with the approval of the commission, from the Pasay Transportation Co., for the operation of a half-hourly service on the line Malolos-Manila and the line Hagonoy-San Rafael via Malolos, with option to reduce the headway to five minutes or less in case of extraordinary heavy traffic and "to transfer or exchange its cars from one line to another." And it seems to be the contention of the company, as the commission puts it, "that by virtue of this authority it may dispatch a trip from Hagonoy bound for San Rafael, and because of its alleged right to transfer cars from one line to another, the truck leaving Hagonoy upon reaching Malolos may be transferred at Malolos to the Malolos-Manila line, thereby permitting a direct trip from Hagonoy to Manila. Also, a truck coming from Manila upon reaching Malolos may, in accordance with respondent’s herein petitioner) theory, be transferred to the Hagonoy-San Rafael line and proceed on a continuous trip to Hagonoy." In other words, in accordance with the company’s contention, its trips on the Hagonoy-San Rafael and Manila-Hagonoy lines, may, on the way, change direction as well as destination.

    It seems to us that this would be converting a regular into an irregular operation, a decidedly backward step is the promotion of a transportation service. Gone are the days, it is to be hoped, of the irregular operation, an excusable evil in the infancy of the auto-truck transportation business but certainly an anachronism now after more than thirty years of State reglementation. At least no necessity has been shown for reverting to the old system.

    There is no disputing the proposition that a direct service from Hagonoy to Manila and vice versa is more convenient to passengers travelling between those two points than a service that requires transfer at Malolos. But the fact should not be overlooked that Ablaza is already rendering such direct service. And while the company claims prior authorization for that same purpose, such claim is based on an erroneous interpretation of the extent and meaning of the authority granted. This is made clear by the following excerpt from the decision below, of which we approve:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It could not possibly have been the intention to grant respondent authority to switch trucks at any point where two or more of its authorized lines cross inasmuch as such practice would subject passengers who take a truck at a given starting point to great inconvenience if they were required to transfer to another truck at a crossing point so that the truck which they originally boarded might be able to transfer to another line and proceed to a different terminal point. The authority to transfer or exchange cars from one line to another necessarily refers to cars or buses which upon reaching the terminal point of an authorized line are empty, in which case their transfer to another line or portion of that line would not cause inconvenience to any passenger. For instance, a truck leaving Manila for Calumpit and arriving at Malolos empty could be switched at Malolos and made to proceed to Hagonoy, in case of extraordinary heavy traffic, or in cases of emergencies, such as accidents, or fiestas, etc. This is even a broad view of the authorization because it will be observed that while the five-minute headway is authorized in some of respondent’s lines or portions thereof, the authorization regarding transfer or exchange of cars refers to transfer or exchanges from one line to another and makes no mention of portions of a line."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The plea is made that the company and its predecessor in interest, the Pasay Transportation Company, has been operating a direct service between Hagonoy and Manila since 1929 with the knowledge and tacit consent and even the protection of the commission, so that the said operation may be said to have become a vested right which may not be taken away during the life of the certificates sanctioning it. But as the commission rightly observes, only a certificate or an express authority issued by that body could vest in an operator the right to operate on a given line, so that the mere user of authority which is erroneously supposed to have been granted, even when tolerated by the commission, cannot ripen into a right that is beyond the power of the Commission to revoke when the error is discovered.

    It may be added that the company’s interpretation of its certificate would enable it to crowd Ablaza out of his line by running extra trips between Hagonoy and Manila on a five-minute headway as against Ablaza’s schedule of one trip every half-hour. In that case, the company would practically have no time schedule, being, as it claims, authorized by its certificate to switch cars from one line to another and run trips at an interval of five minutes or less. Such a privilege if recognized would lead to confusion and ruinous competition, which is against the policy and intent of the Public Service Law.

    We find no reason for disturbing the decision of the commission. The petition for review is, therefore, dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.

    Ozaeta, Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-2108   May 31, 1949 - PAMPANGA BUS CO. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA<br /><br />083 Phil 905


    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