Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1975 > July 1975 Decisions > G.R. No. L-31460 July 25, 1975 - GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LETICIA B. LOCSIN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-31460. July 25, 1975.]

GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, v. LETICIA B. LOCSIN, and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Petitioner was a taxi operator with a fixed base of operations at Bacolod City. Private respondent was an applicant for a certificate of public convenience to operate at a place 15 kms. away from petitioner’s base of operations. Petitioner opposed the application. The then Public Service Commission dismissed the opposition stating that while the certificate of public convenience of the existing operator includes the whole island of Negros as the territorial limit, its taxis can only go to places other than Bacolod if it has passengers. In the place applied for by private respondent, nobody is legally authorized to operate. This order of dismissal was assailed in a petition for certiorari and prohibition, and a preliminary injunction was issued by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, however, private respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that, as alleged in Civil Case 11402 where petitioner was a respondent, he is no longer in the taxicab transportation business and that thereby, he has lost any legal interest in the case.

The Court held that the motion to dismiss is warranted for an adjudication of the validity of the order of dismissal to an opposition to the application by respondent Commission no longer exists.

Petition dismissed for being moot and academic.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION; DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR BEING MOOT AND ACADEMIC; INSTANT CASE. — A motion to dismiss the petition assailing the decision of the defunct Public Service Commission, dismissing the opposition of petitioner to private respondent’s application for a certificate of public convenience alleging among others, that petitioner (a respondent in Civil Case 11402) claimed thereat that he had closed shop and was no longer in the taxicab transportation business, is clearly warranted for whatever legal interest that could serve as the basis for an adjudication on the validity of an order of dismissal of an opposition to an application by respondent Commission no longer exists. It would appear then that the case has become moot and academic.


R E S O L U T I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


This certiorari and prohibition proceeding arose from an order of respondent Public Service Commission which dismissed the opposition of petitioner to an application filed by private respondent Leticia B. Locsin. The order reads as follows: "It is an admitted fact that the base of operation of the Generoso Villanueva Trans. Co., Inc., represented by Atty. Ocampo, is in Bacolod City which is more or less 15 kilometers away from the prospective base of operation of the herein application of Leticia Locsin which is Silay City. While it is true that the certificate of public convenience includes the whole island of Negros as the territorial limit within which the existing operator can operate, yet it is equally true that any taxi belonging to the existing operator can only go to places other than Bacolod City if it has passengers. In other words, in the place applied for by Leticia Locsin, nobody is legally authorized to operate. While it may be true that the existing operator may remotely be affected by the existence of a new operator, the Court observes such an effect is very remote. To interpret, the right of existing operator to oppose any application filed within the territorial boundary granted, far away as the place is, would be stretching that right too far because the public would certainly be affected by the absence of operator in that place applied for. Wherefore, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the opposition of the existing operator, represented by Atty. Ocampo, being based only in Bacolod City which has a distance of 15 kilometers from the base of operation of herein applicant cannot legally be entertained. If an existing operator is the holder of a certificate of public convenience of PUB, wherein a fixed route is prescribed and a time schedule is observed, then the opposition by the existing operator is feasible. But the existing operator in this case is only a taxi operator with a fixed base in a certain locality. In view thereof, the opposition is dismissed. Let this case proceed as uncontested." 1 It was assailed on the ground of its having been rendered without or in excess of the jurisdiction of the now defunct Public Service Commission or at the very least with grave abuse of discretion. The respondents were required to file an answer. In the same resolution, a preliminary injunction was issued by this Court. Subsequently, the parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was submitted for decision.

Then, on March 21, 1975, there was a motion by private respondent Locsin to dismiss the petition: "That in the petition for certiorari, prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction filed on January 9, 1970 by Generoso Villanueva Transportation Co., Inc., (G. V. Transportation for short) against the private respondent and the now defunct Public Service Commission, it is alleged: 1. That petitioner ‘. . . is a grantee of a certificate of public convenience to operate taxicab service within the City of Bacolod and from said place to any point in the Island of Negros open to motor vehicle traffic . . .’ (par. 1); 2. That subsequently and in Civil Case No. 11402 entitled ‘Teodoro Baldado, Et. Al. petitioners v. Generoso Villanueva Transportation Co., Inc., Et Al., Respondents, ‘ petitioners therein who were taxicab drivers and mechanics of the taxicabs of the G. V. Transportation filed a case for Mandamus against said company alleging that it illegally dismissed petitioners therein from their employment; 3. That in its answer to the petition, said transportation company alleged that it had closed shop and was no longer in the taxicab transportation business since April 3, 1974; 4. That these facts are evidenced by the order dated June 28, 1974 in said Civil Case No. 11402 issued by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, [with a copy of the order attached.]; 5. That as a matter of fact none of the taxicab units of petitioner herein have been making trips conformably with the certificate issued in its favor by the defunct Public Service Commission because, as may be gathered from the contents of the order Annex ‘A’, all the taxicab drivers and mechanics of herein petitioner were dismissed by the latter because it ‘stopped or shut down their business . . . and because of the closure of the business of the respondent since April 3, 1974 . . .’ (p. 2, Annex ‘A’); 6. That it is evident from the above that petitioner has no longer any legal interest in the present case because its petition is based on the premise that it is a grantee of a certificate of public convenience to engage in the taxicab business in Negros Occidental but it has closed and abandoned its taxicab business since April 3, 1974." 2 The petitioner was required to comment, and it did so. There was no denial that as set forth in the motion to dismiss, it alleged that it was no longer in the taxicab transportation business as of April 3, 1974. It would however seek to escape from the legal effects of such an admission well-nigh conclusive in nature by the allegation that it could be construed merely as its response to a labor dispute possibly as a means of extricating itself from possible financial liability. Under the circumstances, the motion to dismiss is more than clearly warranted for whatever legal interest that could serve as the basis for an adjudication on the validity of an order of dismissal of an opposition to an application by respondent Public Service Commission no longer exists. It would appear then that the case has become moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed for being moot and academic. The preliminary injunction issued by this Court on January 28, 1970 is lifted and is no longer of any force or effect.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Order dated June 25, 1969, Appendix "F" to Petition.

2. Motion to Dismiss Petition dated March 5, 1975.




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






July-1975 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30736 July 11, 1975 - LIRAG TEXTILE MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. COURT ON APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21814 July 15, 1975 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MELECIO ABANZADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28017 July 15, 1975 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK, ET AL. v. WILLIAM PFLEIDER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30543 July 15, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO CAWILI

  • G.R. No. L-30727 July 15, 1975 - CITY OF OZAMIZ v. SERAPIO S. LUMAPAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34897 July 15, 1975 - RAUL ARELLANO v. CFI OF SORSOGON, BRANCH I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37312 July 15, 1975 - MARCOS B. COMILANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37662 July 15, 1975 - RCPI v. PHIL. COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS & ELECTRICITY WORKERS’ FEDERATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39721 July 15, 1975 - BRAULIO BERNABE v. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-39324 July 16, 1975 - CATALINO MAGDANGAL, ET AL. v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-15 July 17, 1975 - ALFONSO GUEVARRA, ET AL. v. EULALIO JUANSON

  • A.M. No. P-55 July 17, 1975 - ESPERANZA SARMIENTO v. FLORENCIO M. DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. L-37645 July 17, 1975 - JESUS L. SANTOS v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-38137 July 17, 1975 - JOSE M. CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65120 July 18, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO A. AMPARO

  • A.M. No. 32-MJ July 18, 1975 - LEON FRANADA, ET AL. v. VICENTE M. ERICTA, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-107 July 18, 1975 - ANTONIO PALAFOX, JR. v. CHARITO AKUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22375 July 18, 1975 - CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC. v. PLASTIC ERA CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24754 July 18, 1975 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. P. J. KIENER COMPANY, LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29678 July 18, 1975 - JOSEFINA LODOVICA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39381 July 18, 1975 - FELISA LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 72-MJ July 22, 1975 - IGMEDIO T. LI v. JOSE H. MIJARES

  • A.M. No. P-105 July 22, 1975 - AUREA G. PEÑALOSA v. LIGAYA P SALAYON

  • A.M. No. P-167 July 22, 1975 - ALFREDO T. MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO C. ECLAVEA

  • A.M. No. P-202 July 22, 1975 - RENE P. RAMOS v. MOISES R. RADA

  • A.M. No. T-344 July 22, 1975 - IN RE: PEDRO P. TONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-25012 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26544 July 22, 1975 - NONATO BARROSO v. CASTRENSE C. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28853 July 22, 1975 - BICOL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. G. S. CUYUGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28905 July 22, 1975 - TIU PO v. LILY LIM TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28967 July 22, 1975 - AMELIA G. TIBLE v. JOSE C. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-30477 July 22, 1975 - CRESCENTE VICTORINO v. FELIX ELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30915 July 22, 1975 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31150 July 22, 1915

    KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37635 July 22, 1975 - CRESENCIO MARTINEZ v. LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA

  • G.R. No. L-38196 July 22, 1975 - FEDERICO PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39677 July 22, 1975 - INTER-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39990 July 22, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL LICERA

  • A.M. No. P-1 July 25, 1975 - CIRILO TINAHA v. BENJAMIN MARAVILLA

  • A.M. No. 301-MJ July 25, 1975 - PABLO FETALINO v. CESAR L. MACALISANG

  • A.M. No. 306-MJ July 25, 1975 - MONICA SARMIENTO v. RAYMUNDO R. CRUZ

  • A.C. No. 532-MJ July 25, 1975 - PAULA S. QUIZON, ET. AL. v. JOSE G. BALTAZAR, JR.

  • A.C. No. 610-MJ July 25, 1975 - GEORGE P. SUAN v. DELSANTO RESUELLO

  • A.C. No. 936 July 25, 1975 - FERMINA LEGASPI DAROY, ET AL. v. RAMON CHAVES LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-19462 July 25, 1975 - ANTONIO V. ZARAGOZA v. ENRIQUE A. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22781 July 25, 1975 - BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24917 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GETULIO VERZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25434 July 25, 1975 - ARSENIO N. ROLDAN, JR. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26872 July 25, 1975 - VILLONCO REALTY COMPANY v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27408 July 25, 1975 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28271 July 25, 1975 - SMITH, BELL & CO. (PHIL.), INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-28399 July 25, 1975 - COMPANIA MARITIMA, ET AL. v. UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30343 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO MENGOTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31460 July 25, 1975 - GENEROSO VILLANUEVA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LETICIA B. LOCSIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32052 July 25, 1975 - PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33502 July 25, 1975 - FEDERICO CABREJAS, ET AL. v. LUIS P. DONGALLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34952 July 25, 1975 - RAMON D. BAGATSING, ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38135 July 25, 1975 - HILARIO C. ANTONIO v. ARTURO R. TANCO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38624 July 25, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40511 July 25, 1975 - MARA, INC. v. JUSTINIANO C. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40879 July 25, 1975 - IN RE: MAXIMO PAMPLONA v. MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF CALAMBA

  • G.R. No. L-22006 July 28, 1975 - BASILIO PEREZ, ET AL. v. NICOLAS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21231 July 30, 1975 - CONCORDIA LALUAN, ET AL. v. APOLINARIO MALPAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28546 July 30, 1975 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. PASTOR D. AGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33713 July 30, 1975 - EUSEBIO B. GARCIA v. ERNESTO S. MATA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-143 July 31, 1975 - IN RE: APOLINAR O. FLORES

  • A.M. No. 392 July 31, 1975 - LUISA DE NACIONAL v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • A.C. No. 775 July 31, 1975 - BENJAMIN BAYOT v. JESUS R. BLANCA

  • A.M. No. 866-CJ July 31, 1975 - MIGUEL AGlLADA v. ALOYSIUS C. ALDAY

  • A.M. No. 899-MJ July 31, 1975 - MELQUIADES UDANI, JR. v. ALFONSO T. PAGHARION

  • A.C. No. 1236 July 31, 1975 - BERNARDA ARGANA v. VIRGILIO ANZ. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-22493 July 31, 1975 - ISLAND SALES, INC. v. UNITED PIONEERS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23035 July 31, 1975 - PHILIPPINE NUT INDUSTRY, INC. v. STANDARD BRANDS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26363 July 31, 1975 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26478-79 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF ANSELMA TUGADI, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27088 July 31, 1975 - HEIRS OF BATIOG LACAMEN v. HEIRS OF LARUAN

  • G.R. No. L-30822 July 31, 1975 - EDUARDO CLAPAROLS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31685 July 31, 1975 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. IMELDA R. MARCOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-35377-78 July 31, 1975 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO PILOTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36424 July 31, 1975 - INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. LORENZO RELOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38224 July 31, 1975 - CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38388 July 31, 1975 - GABRIEL LOQUIAS v. CESARIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38577 July 31, 1975 - C.K. SAN v. ELIAS B. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40403 July 31, 1975 - RUPERTA CONSTANTINO v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40796 July 31, 1975 - REPUBLIC BANK v. MAURICIA T. EBRADA