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
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION<br /><br />102 Phil 1013

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11186. January 31, 1958.]

    ALFONSO CABABA, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PONCIANO CARILLO, and BALBINO REMIGIO, Respondents.

    Rosendo B. Buenavides for Petitioner.

    Benigno G. Agco for respondent Ponciano Carillo.

    Jimmy C. Luczon for respondent Balbino Remigio.


    SYLLABUS


    PUBLIC UTILITY; FERRY SERVICE; LOCAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OPERATION OF SERVICE WHEN NECESSARY. — Where the ferry lies entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of a municipality previous approval of that municipality is necessary before the Public Service Commission can grant a private operator a certificate of public convenience for its own operation; but this rule cannot be invoked where the ferry service proposed two municipalities and serves as a continuation, by watercraft, of a national highway. If local authorization were needed for the operation of such ferry service, that authorization should more properly come from the provincial board since there are two municipalities involved.


    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, A., J.:


    This case concerns the operation of a ferry service by means of motor boats across the Cagayan river, in the province of that name, between the municipality of Aparri on the west bank of that river and the municipality of Calamaniugan on the opposite bank.

    For the operation of such ferry service two applications were filed with the Public Service Commission: one by Ponciano P. Carillo who proposed to operate between the barrio of Mabangug, in the municipality of Aparri, and the barrio of Alinunu, in the municipality of Camalaniugan, and the other by Balbino Remigio, who proposed to operate between the same barrio of Mabangug, Aparri, and the barrio of Catotoran, in the municipality of Camalaniugan. The purpose of both ferries is to bridge a gap in a national land highway where it is interrupted by a body of water.

    Both applications were opposed by Alfonso Cababa, an operator of a ferry service across the same river but between two barrios of the same municipality, namely, the barrios of Catotoran and Calaoagan, both in the municipality of Camalaniugan. The oppositor had a certificate of public convenience from the Public Service Commission and a contract with the said municipality for the operation of that ferry.

    Alleging that the applications of Carrilo and Remigio had already been disapproved by the municipal council of Camalaniugan, the oppositor also moved for the dismissal of those applications on the theory that the Public Service Commission had no jurisdiction to grant them without the previous approval of the municipalities concerned.

    The Commission denied the motion after hearing applicant’s evidence on the merits. But the proceedings were interrupted because, upon a new date being set for the continuation of the hearing, the oppositor came to this Court with the present petition for certiorari and prohibition to have us annul the order denying his motion to dismiss and also to have the Commission desist from further hearing the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

    We find the petition to be without merit.

    In contending that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain applications for the operation of a ferry without the said applications being first approved by the municipalities concerned, petitioner relies upon our decision in the cases of Municipality of Gattaran v. Doroteo Elizaga, 91 Phil. 440, and Municipality of Gattaran v. Fruto Elizaga, 91 Phil. 440, where we said that when a private party obtains a permit from the municipal council for the operation of a municipal ferry, he must, before he can operate, "first obtain a certificate or permit from the Public Service Commission", but that the Commission had no power to consider and grant the applications in those two cases without previous municipal approval, "for the reason that the ferries in question were within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality." The cases cited are authority for holding that where a ferry lies entirely within the territorial jurisdiction of a municipality, previous approval of that municipality is necessary before the Public Service Commission can grant a private operator a certificate of public convenience for its operation; but they cannot be invoked as a precedent for the case now before us where the ferry service proposed is between two municipalities and serves as a continuation, by watercraft, of a national highway. If local authorization were needed for the operation of such a ferry service, that authorization should more properly come from the provincial board since there are two municipalities involved. And we note that the provincial board of Cagayan has, as a matter of fact, already declared itself in favor of allowing the proposed ferry service, since it has, by resolution, taken note of the inadequacy of the existing service and expressed the belief that service would be improved with the allowance of new operators, and it has also ordered a copy of the resolution sent to the Public Service Commission "for its consideration in determining cases now pending before said Commission for the authority to operate said service."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Not being a municipal ferry and impressed as it is with the character of a national highway on one side of the river and its continuation on the opposite side, the ferry proposed by each of the respondent applicants, or rather the authority for its operation as a public service does not need municipal approval before it can be granted by the Public Service Commission.

    In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION<br /><br />102 Phil 1013


    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