Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > August 1934 Decisions > G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

060 Phil 335:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 41292. August 11, 1934.]

RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. LUNETA MOTOR CO. and LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS CO., Respondents-Appellees.

A. M. Zarate for Appellant.

Jose Agbulos, Harvey & O’Brien and Eugenio Angeles for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE; RUINOUS COMPETITION. — The fact that the original operator did not succeed in his business, for which reason his certificates were attached and finally sold at public auction, does not necessarily mean that his failure was due to ruinous competition because it might as well have been due to some other causes, such as poor management. On the contrary, the acquisition of the same business by the appellee is an indication that it is not a poor one and that it may be continued with possibilities of obtaining a reasonable profit.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


In civil case No. 42168 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Luneta Motor Co., Inc. v. Nicanor de Guzman, the plaintiff attached the defendant’s certificates of public convenience and the same were sold at public auction to said plaintiff. Said sale was approved by the Public Service Commission in cases Nos. 33031 and 35810 and was confirmed by this court in cases Nos. 39902 and 39903. 1

Luneta Motor Co., Inc., sold the same certificates for P4,000 to Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and both filed application in case No. 36603 praying the commission to approve the second sale. It was in this case where the appellant Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc., opposed the approval of the sale praying that it be given preference to buy said certificates for the same amount on the ground that it is an operator on the same Pililla, Rizal-Manila line and that to approve the sale in question would be to sanction a ruinous competition between it and the buyer. After due hearing, the commission denied the opposition and approved the sale. The oppositor appealed.

The appellant assigns the following alleged errors in the decision appealed from:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Error No. 1. — That the Public Service Commission erred in permitting and authorizing the appellee, Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., to invade the territory of the herein Appellant.

"Error No. 2. — That the Public Service Commission erred in perpetuating the ruinous competition in the line Pililla-Manila and in not attempting to protect the old existing operators in the said line, more particularly the appellant herein, knowing fully well that there is ruinous competition in the said line.

"Error No. 3. — That the Public Service Commission erred in not holding that the appellant has a preferential right to acquire the line in question as pioneer operator in the said line, thereby avoiding ruinous competition.

"Error No. 4. — That the Public Service Commission erred in denying the appellant’s motion for reconsideration and rehearing."cralaw virtua1aw library

In approving the sale, the commission, based its decision on the following considerations, to wit: that the sale of the certificates to Luneta Motor Co., Inc., already constitutes res judicata on the ground that it was approved and sanctioned by final judgment; that the appellant had opportunity to acquire the said certificates at the public auction but it did nothing to that effect; that the circumstances stated did not show that a ruinous competition would necessarily arise between the operators and that the objection based on this ground cannot be interposed in the case for the approval of the sale in favor of the appellee but that it should have been raised when the original operator had applied for the issuance of the said certificates, and that the appellant cannot successfully invoke the established doctrines on preference, improvement and increase of equipment on the ground that the case does not involve an application for new certificates.

This court has carefully examined the record and found nothing to support the appeal. The decision is supported by the facts and is in accordance with the general principles governing the matter involved in the case. The fact that the original operator did not succeed in his business for which reason his certificates were attached and finally sold at public auction, does not necessarily mean that his failure was due to ruinous competition because it might as well have been due to other causes, such as poor management. On the contrary, the acquisition of the same business by the appellee is an indication that it is not a poor one and that it may be continued with possibilities of obtaining a reasonable profit.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte and Goddard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co. (58 Phil., 889).




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






August-1934 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40198 August 1, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO URSUA

    060 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 40709 August 1, 1934 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO., INC.

    060 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 41568 August 2, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TRANQUILINO BALANSAG

    060 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 40372 August 4, 1934 - GOTIAOCO HERMANOS, INC. v. FELICIANA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 41040 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GELACIO DEQUIÑA

    060 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 41131 August 9, 1934 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MIGUEL v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF LEYTE, ET AL.

    060 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 41308 August 9, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CO CHANG

    060 Phil 293

  • G.R. Nos. 41984 & 42051 August 9, 1934 - NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, ET AL. v. DELFIN JARANILLA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 42142 August 9, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., v. MARIANO A. ALBERT, ET AL.

    060 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 40322 August 10, 1934 - SINFOROSO DE GALA v. GENEROSO DE GALA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 40763 August 10, 1934 - UNITED STATES SHOE COMPANY v. LOURDES M. CATALA

    060 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 40786 August 10, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO ARIARTE

    060 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 40958 August 11, 1934 - JOSE SANTOS v. MARIA LUCIANO

    060 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 41292 August 11, 1934 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUNETA MOTOR CO., ET AL.

    060 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 40945 August 15, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    060 Phil 338

  • G.R. Nos. 40543 & 40544 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IMAM AMPAN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 40934 August 16, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELENO QUINTO

    060 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 40445 August 17, 1934 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    060 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 40553 August 17, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BUADA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 41503 August 17, 1934 - E. M. MASTERSON v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    060 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. 40577 August 23, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO REYES, ET AL.

    060 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. 41313 August 24, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MANDIA

    060 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 42181 August 24, 1934 - PEDRO V. MANZA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, ET AL.

    060 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 42209 August 24, 1934 - VICENTE BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. VALERIANO FUGOSO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 40581 August 25, 1934 - ALEJANDRO SAMIA v. IRENE MEDINA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 41045 August 25, 1934 - CANUTO JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. ROBERTA JOAQUIN, ET AL.

    060 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 41311 August 28, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON L. MALLARI, ET AL.

    060 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 40766 August 29, 1934 - W. S. PRICE v. YU CHENGCO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 41002 August 29, 1934 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

    060 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 41205 August 29, 1934 - SATURNINO AGUILAR, ET AL. v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    060 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 41213 August 29, 1934 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VIUDA DE SY QUIA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. 41532 August 29, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO FORMENTO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. 42137 August 29, 1934 - PEDRO REYES v. JESUS M. PAZ, ET AL.

    060 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 39871 August 30, 1934 - EMILIA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. ANTONINA JASON, ET AL.

    060 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 40905 August 30, 1934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES SANTOS

    060 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 40913 August 30, 1934 - EUGENIO ALIMON v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    060 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 41456 August 30, 1934 - J. T. KNOWLES v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    060 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 39810 August 31, 1934 - BENITO TAN CHAT, ET AL. v. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO

    060 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 40921 August 31, 1934 - IN RE: SIY CHONG LIN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    060 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 41421 August 31, 1934 - ROSENDO R. LLAMAS, ET AL. v. GONZALO ABAYA, ET AL.

    060 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 41534 August 31, 1934 - M.P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    060 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 42241 August 31, 1934 - C.P. FELICIANO v. GIL CALIMBAS, ET AL.

    060 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 42259 August 31, 1934 - ISABEL BIBBY PADILLA v. A. HORRILLENO, ET AL.

    060 Phil 511