Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1952 > May 1952 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-4378-79 May 28, 1952 - MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA

091 Phil 440:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-4378-79. May 28, 1952.]

THE MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN, Petitioner, v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA, Respondent. THE MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN, Petitioner, v. FRUTO ELIZAGA, Respondent.

Assistant Provincial Fiscal Honorio P. Reyes.

A. H. Aspillera for respondent Public Service Commission. for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; PUBLIC UTILITIES; AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITY TO ISSUE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A FERRY. — Persons and entities interested in the operation of municipal ferries must first apply to the municipal council concerned. The Public Service Commission has no power to consider and grant an application without previous approval and grant of the municipality for the reason that the ferry in question was within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality.

2. ID.; ID.; AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITY RECONCILED WITH AUTHORITY OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. — Whether the operation of a municipal ferry be undertaken by the municipality itself or let and given to a private party after public bidding, it should be supervised and regulated by the Public Service Commission. When a private party, winner in a public bidding conducted by the municipal council, gets a permit to operate a municipal ferry from the municipality, before he can operate, he must first obtain a certificate or permit from the Public Service Commission, which, upon granting it, will fix the rates to be charged by him as well as specify the kind of equipment to be used by him for the comfort, convenience and safety of the public using said ferry.


D E C I S I O N


MONTEMAYOR, J.:


These two cases call for an interpretation of Sections 2318-2320 of the Revised Administrative Code in connection with Section 13 of Commonwealth Act 146 known as the Public Service Act, as regards jurisdiction over the establishment and operation of municipal ferries. Under Article XX, Chapter 57, Title IX, Book III of the Revised Administrative Code, entitled "Conduct of Certain Public Utilities", Sections 2318-2320 provide that a municipal council shall have authority to acquire or establish municipal ferries; that the municipal authorities may either conduct said public utility upon account of the municipality or let it to a private party who is the highest and best bidder, for a period of one year, or, upon the previous approval of the Provincial Board, for a longer period not exceeding five years. Under these legal provisions the municipality of Gattaran, Cagayan, for many years had been maintaining ferry service in several places across the Cagayan river and its tributaries, all within its territorial jurisdiction, enacting suitable ordinances for the purpose. The last ordinance approved was Ordinance No. 17, series of 1948, approved by the Provincial Board on November 26, 1948. It provided rules and regulations respecting the maintenance of these municipal ferries with a schedule of fares. It also provided for the submission of bids. As a result of the public bidding for the operation of these ferries, held on December 15, 1949, Fruto Elizaga won the bids for the Centro-Callao Ferry for P1,200 per annum and Minanga-Casicallan Ferry for P110.00 per annum; Domingo Persiano won the bid for the Guising-Aggunetan Ferry for P25, and Celestino Tabrilla for the Guising-Calapangan Ferry for P150.

On March 4, 1950, Fruto Elizaga filed an application with the Public Service Commission, Case No. 56020, for the operation of a ferry service in the following places:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) CENTRO-NABBANNAGAN

(b) CENTRO-GUMAO

(c) MINANGA-CASICALLAN

(d) CAUNOAN-CENTRO

all in the municipality of Gattaran, Cagayan.

On March 6, 1950, Doroteo Elizaga, brother of Fruto, also filed an application with the Public Service Commission, Case No. 56183, to operate a ferry service on the following places:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) CALLAO-CENTRO

(b) FUGU-DUMMUN

(c) GUISING-CALAPANGAN

(d) LABOGAN, GATTARAN-ABARIONGAN, FAIRE

(e) NASSIPING, GATTARAN-DUNGAO, FAIRE

also all within the municipality of Gattaran.

On July 26, 1950, the municipality of Gattaran filed its opposition to the applications of Doroteo and Fruto on the ground that the municipality was able and willing to operate these ferries; that for the Commission to grant permits to the applicants would cause great loss of revenue to it; and that the authority of the municipality to acquire, maintain and operate municipal ferries is still good and subsisting.

On July 28, 1950, the municipality of Gattaran filed a motion to dismiss these applications on the ground that the Public Service Commission had no jurisdiction over them, said jurisdiction being lodged in the municipal Council.

On September 23, 1950, the Public Service Commission, overruling the opposition of the Municipality, granted the two applications, finding that the applicants could promote public convenience and interest in a proper and suitable manner and stating that under section 13 of Commonwealth Act 146 as amended, the Commission had jurisdiction, supervision and control over the operation of ferry services. These two cases now before us are for the review of those two decisions of the Commission.

The jurisdiction granted by section 13, Commonwealth Act 146 to the Public Service Commission over ferries is general. It is the same general jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission which includes a long list of Public utilities from common carriers and ice plants to telephone and wireless and telegraph systems. Said general jurisdiction includes supervision and control of the equipment and other properties of said public services or utilities, intended to insure and safeguard the convenience, comfort and safety of the public. On the other hand, grant of supervision and authority by the Administrative Code to municipalities or municipal council over public utilities such as municipal ferries, markets, etc. is specific, and undoubtedly had as its main purpose, providing an additional source of revenue to municipal corporations for their maintenance and operation. The two seemingly conflicting jurisdictions - one by the Public Service Commission and the other by the municipalities may readily by reconciled. Whether the operation of a municipal ferry be undertaken by the municipality itself or let and given to a private party after public bidding, it should be supervised and regulated by the Public Service Commission. When a private party, winner in a public bidding conducted by the Municipal Council, like Fruto Elizaga, gets the permit to operate a municipal ferry from the municipality, before he can operate, he must first obtain a certificate or permit from the Public Service Commission which upon granting it, will fix the rates to be charged by him as well as specify the kind of equipment to be used by him for the comfort, convenience and safety of the public using said ferry. Of course, it will readily be understood that in fixing the rare to be charged by the operator the amount he has paid to the municipality for the privileged to operate the ferry must be taken into account by the Public Service Commission so as to allow a reasonable margin of profit.

This arrangement or procedure is not disimilar to that followed in cases of a grant of electric plant franchise by a municipality under Act 667. In such a case, the municipality grants a franchise to install and operate an electric plant. Before the grantee, however, can operate he must apply to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The Commission fixes the rates to be charged by said grantee and specifies the equipment to be used etc.

Oftentimes, a ferry is used not only by the residents of a single municipality but by people from many municipalities specially when the ferry is a continuation of a public or national highway. That may be one of the reasons for vesting the Public Service Commission with general jurisdiction over ferries. The Commission with its supervisors and technical personnel is in a better position to determine and fix reasonable rates to be charged, for the protection and benefit of residents not only of the municipality where the ferry is located but of all the towns even provinces affected; also to specify the kind of equipment to be used, specially when motor-driven, and the manner of its operation, so as to insure maximum convenience, speed and safety for the public. In cases of newly opened lands of the public domain where the ferry is not found in any organized municipality, the Public Service Commission may find itself with original jurisdiction over said ferry, and prospective applicants may directly file their applications with it.

In these two cases, the Public Service Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in overruling the opposition of the municipality of Gattaran. It had no power to consider and grant the applications without the previous approval and grant of the municipality for the reason that the ferries in question were within the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality.

In this connection, it might be suggested that inasmuch as certificates of public convenience granted by the Public Service Commission are generally for a relatively long period of time, municipal councils would do well to also lengthen the period of the grant of the privilege of operating municipal ferries to the highest bidder, not only for one year as was fixed in the bid won by Fruto Elizaga, but say for five years, of course securing therefor the requisite approval of the Provincial Board, as provided by section 2319 of the Revised Administrative Code.

In view of the foregoing, the decisions of the Public Service Commission in these two cases appealed from, are hereby reversed and the proceedings had therein annulled, with costs against the appellees, Doroteo and Fruto Elizaga. Persons and entities interested in the operation of municipal ferries must first apply to the municipal council concerned.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Bautista Angelo and Labrador;, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1952 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4367 May 2, 1952 - GENEROSA TORREFIEL, ET AL. v. ANASTACIO TORIANO

    091 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. L-3318 May 5, 1952 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. SOTERO BALUYOT

    091 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-5482 May 5, 1952 - TRANQUILINO ROVERO v. RAFAEL AMPARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. L-4741 May 7, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIGIO CAMO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-5514 May 7, 1952 - PEDRO CALANO v. PEDRO CRUZ

    091 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-4472 May 8, 1952 - ESPIRIDION RONE v. VICTOR CLARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. L-5047 May 8, 1952 - VICENTE PANG KOK HUA v. REPUBLICA DE FILIPINAS

    091 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. L-4002 May 12, 1952 - RAMON PASCUAL v. REALTY INVESTMENT, INC.

    091 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. L-4615 May 12, 1952 - JUAN DULDULAO, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    091 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. L-4133 May 13, 1952 - AGUSTINA DE GUZMAN VDA. DE CARRILLO v. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ

    091 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4893 May 13, 1952 - PEDRO GAMBOA v. JOSE TEODORO

    091 Phil 270

  • G.R. Nos. L-4100 & L-4102 May 15, 1952 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY v. LUIS CLARETE

    091 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4156 May 15, 1952 - FLORENCIA VITUG v. DONATA MONTEMAYOR

    091 Phil 286

  • G.R. Nos. L-4218-19 May 19, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO OBENIA

    091 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-4420 May 19, 1952 - CESAR REYES v. MAX BLOUSE

    091 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3899 May 21, 1952 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORINO CERVO

    091 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-4189 May 21, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. JACINTO SANTOS

    091 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. L-4234 May 21, 1952 - ABBOT LABORATORIES v. CELEDONIO AGRAVA

    091 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-3391 May 23, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ

    091 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-4132 May 23, 1952 - FRANCISCO M. ALONSO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    091 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. L-4333 May 23, 1952 - MARY HAYDEN ARCACHE v. NICOLAS LIZARES & CO., INC., ET AL.

    091 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-3646 May 26, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    091 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-4043 May 26, 1952 - CENON S. CERVANTES v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL

    091 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-4783 May 26, 1952 - JULITA RELUCIO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE, ETC.

    091 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. L-4869 May 26, 1952 - ESTEBAN MANGAOANG v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LA UNION

    091 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-3538 May 28, 1952 - JUAN LUNA SUBDIVISION v. M. SARMIENTO

    091 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-4061 May 28, 1952 - CENTRAL VEGETABLE OIL MANUFACTURING CO. v. PHIL. OIL INDUSTRY WORKERS UNION

    091 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-4091 May 28, 1952 - MARIANO M. PARAS v. COURT OF APPEALS

    091 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. L-4181 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. RODOLFO GERARDO

    091 Phil 395

  • G.R. Nos. L-4231 y L-4232 May 28, 1952 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ARTURO ALFARO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-4316 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIGINIO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    091 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-4340 May 28, 1952 - REBECCA LEVIN v. JOAQUIN V. BASS

    091 Phil 419

  • G.R. Nos. L-4378-79 May 28, 1952 - MUNICIPALITY OF GATTARAN v. DOROTEO ELIZAGA

    091 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-4533 May 28, 1952 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO MORALES

    091 Phil 445

  • G.R. No. L-4813 May 28, 1952 - ASSOCIATION OF BEVERAGE EMPLOYEES, ET AL. v. JOSE FIGUERAS

    091 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-4229 May 29, 1952 - DALMACIO FALCASANTOS v. HOW SUY CHING

    091 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4373 May 29, 1952 - ENRIQUE BAUTISTA v. LEONCIA REYES

    091 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-4683 May 29, 1952 - OLIMPIO NEÑARIA v. JOSE P. VELUZ

    091 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-4606 May 30, 1952 - RAMON B. FELIPE v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

    091 Phil 482