SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. Nos. L-22785, L-22826 and L-22937 February 10, 1967

CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, ET AL. Petitioners, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents.

Agusto Kalaw and Antonio Barredo for petitioners.
Ta�ada, Teehankee & Carreon for respondent Jose M. Silva.
Almario T. Amador for respondent Florentina Baluyot.
Jorge A. Dolorfino for respondent Honesto Coronel.
Ricardo Mag. Bernaldo for respondent R. Bernardo, M. Mendoza, V. Mulingtapang, etc.
Jose C. Zulueta, Nabayan, Bumanglag, Fernando M. Mangubat, Atienza, Lino B. Alzate, Samuel Bautista, Rolando B. Leonor, Cesar C. Paralejo and R.C. Paralejo, Gerardo M. Alfonso, Emiliano S. Samson and R. Balderrama-Samson, Aristorenas Relova & Enriquez, Mario D. Camacho, Manuel Paredes, Pascual G. Mier, Jaime Miranda, Celso A. Fernandez, Leonardo Bautista, Jr., Levy V. Mendoza, Romulo A. Bernabe, Pacifico M. Lontok and Honorio Lapid, for the respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

DIZON, J.:chanrobles virtual law library

This is an original action for certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion filed against the Public Service Commission and other parties. The order of the Commission complained of was issued on March 5, 1964 and granted to each of one-hundred twenty-five applicants and oppositor counter-applicants provisional permits to operate taxicab units principal party in the City of Manila totalling in all 1,000 units.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On September 25, 1964 Jose M. Silva, one of the respondents, filed a motion to dismiss the present case upon the ground that on September 4 of the same year, the respondent Commission had rendered its decision granting permanent certificates of public convenience to him and his herein co-respondents, either confirming or increasing the number of units granted to each of them under its order of March 5, 1964 mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this obviously rendering the present action for certiorari moot and of no practical importance. A copy of the said decision rendered by the respondent Commission was attached to the motion to dismiss.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Required to answer the motion aforesaid, petitioners, on October 26, 1964, made of record that they interpose no objection to the dismissal of the following cases:

As a result, on January 31, 1966 We issued a resolution dismissing the present action in relation to the cases enumerated above.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Considering, however, that the order complained of and whose annulment is sought in the present action for certiorari granted a mere provisional permit to the respondents, and the same was necessarily deemed superseded by the final decision rendered by the Public Service Commission on September 4, 1964, We are of the opinion that the present case has, as a whole, become academic.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Wherefore, the present petition is dismissed, without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.