Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > August 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

109 Phil 313:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-14101. August 31, 1960.]

ADRIANA DE BLANCO, Petitioner, v. STA. CLARA TRANSPORTATION CO., Respondent.

Jaime R. Blanco for Petitioner.

Ricardo Rosal for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; POWER TO INTERPRET ITS ORDERS. — It is especially the function of the Public Service Commission to interpret and decide the meaning of its own orders. (Miguel Mateo v. Manila Electric Company, 58 Phil., 40.)


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J B. L., J.:


Petition for review of the orders of May 6, 1957, December 2, 1957 and March 26, 1958, and the decision, dated June 9, 1958, of the Public Service Commission in its Case No. 103017.

The petitioner Adriana de Blanco holds a certificate of public convenience for the operation of a TPU jitney service on the line Parañaque (Rizal) — Blumentritt (Manila) via Manila South Road, Taft Avenue, Sta. Cruz (McArthur Bridge) and Rizal Avenue, which certificate expires on December 18, 1975. The respondent Sta. Clara Transportation Co., on the other hand, is a grantee of a similar franchise to operate up to November 12, 1957 a TPU jitney service on the line Baclaran (Rizal) — Port Area (Manila) via Taft Avenue and F. B. Harrison with the use of 37 units, six (6) of which were reserves.

Upon petition of respondent and withdrawal of the oppositions thereto, the Public Service Commission, by order of May 6, 1957, granted the respondent a special permit valid until December 31, 1961 to operate 18 units on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via Taft Avenue and the rest (19 units) on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via F. B. Harrison. Petitioner Blanco moved for reconsideration, alleging that the lines authorized were different from those granted under the original certificate of the applicant; nonetheless by order of December 2, 1957, the Commission ruled that applicant could continue operating on both lines, but that six (6) of the total number of units authorized should be utilized by the applicant only as reserves. Oppositor thereupon filed a motion to reset the case for trial, a motion for reconsideration, and an omnibus motion; but by order of March 26, 1958, they were denied, except the motion to reset the case for hearing, which was granted, in order to allow the oppositor to present her evidence in opposition to the application. After the hearing, and finding merit in the application, despite oppositor’s claims, the Public Service Commission, in a decision dated June 9, 1958, finally resolved:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the special permit granted to the applicant in the order of May 6, 1957 is hereby affirmed with the modification as above stated that applicant shall operate only 15 jitneys on the line Baclaran - Blumentritt via Taft Avenue and 16 jitneys on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via Harrison, the remaining 6 units to be used as reserve units."cralaw virtua1aw library

Hence this petition for review.

In petitioner’s sole assignment of error it is urged that the Public Service Commission erred in granting respondent "a change of line and time schedule" in open contravention of its Memorandum-Order of March 8, 1957, the relevant provisions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREAS, the docket of the Commission shows that scores of applications for TPU services within Manila and from Manila to its environs have been filed and are now pending hearing and that similar applications continue to be filed daily, while on the other hand the records of our Transportation Division show that there is an abundance of TPU services practically in all lines in Manila as well as from Manila to its environs . . . so that it is necessary to adopt a definite policy as to these applications;

x       x       x


"THEREFORE, the Commission hereby resolves to promulgate, through this Memorandum-Order, the following regulations to govern matters hereabove stated:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


"3. . . . TPU services within the City of Manila and its environs under certificates valid for 5, 10 or 15 years which will expire before December 31, 1961 will be allowed to continue after their expiration under special permits which will be granted ex parte, allowing operation up to December 31, 1961; . . . Provided further, That in granting the special permit, there shall be no change in the lines, time schedules or number of units authorized in the certificate. The special permit shall be absolutely non-extendible and non-transferable and a condition to this effect shall be inserted in the special permit. All applications for certificates to operate TPU services within Manila and its environs, . . . whether they are not being heard, or set for hearing, or pending hearing, or submitted for decision, shall be acted upon under this regulation. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Interpreting the memorandum-order of March 8, 1957, the Public Service Commission itself has declared in the appealed order that the memorandum has no application where the authority to operate the service is "not granted to the applicant ex parte but on the basis of evidence presented by it, which evidence establishes the need for the service on the lines authorized" ; and this interpretation is supported by the text of the Memorandum-Order itself, that expressly refers to special permits granted ex parte (supra). Unless actually without basis, the interpretation placed upon its orders by the Commission should not be disturbed by this Court.

In one case decided by this Court, the question arose as to the propriety of the construction given by the Commission to a prohibitory provision found in a certificate of public convenience and necessity it issued, and we held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is especially the function of the Public Service Commission to interpret and decide the meaning of its own orders. . ." (Miguel Mateo v. Manila Electric Company, 58 Phil., 409.)

We further take note of the fact that in this particular case, the appellant does not dispute the findings of the Commission that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appears from the records of this Commission and the evidence presented by the applicant that prior to the filing of its application on January 11, 1957 it had made a study of the movement of passengers and vehicular traffic on the proposed extended line and found that the line of operation herein applied for will redound to the benefit of the traveling public especially students, employees and laborers; that by eliminating Port Area from its present authorized lines no prejudice will be caused the traveling public as there are not more than sufficient transportation facilities going to this area; that there are plenty of passengers commuting between Blumentritt and Baclaran and these people desire direct and continuous trips to their points of destination without the necessity of making transfers at Plaza Sta. Cruz . . ." (Order of May 6, 1957)

"After an examination of the evidence, we find that public convenience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by permitting the applicant to continue operating 15 jitneys on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via Taft Avenue and 16 jitneys on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via Harrison and the balance of 6 jitneys to be used by it as reserve equipment, and for this reason the opposition of oppositor is hereby overruled." (Decision of June 9, 1958)

Since public convenience is the paramount consideration that should guide the actions of the Public Service Commission (see Cebu Ice & Cold Stores v. Velez, 57 Phil., 309), the more reason exists to uphold the order under review.

We find it unnecessary to resolve the other issues raised by the parties.

Wherefore the petition for review is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.




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-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12362 August 5, 1960 - CECILIO E. TRINIDAD, ET AL. v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    109 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. L-12800 August 5, 1960 - MELECIO CAJILIG, ET AL. v. FLORA ROBERSON CO.

    109 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-14003 August 5, 1960 - FEDERICO AZAOLA v. CESARIO SINGSON

    109 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 - FELICISIMO GATMAITAN v. GORGONIO D. MEDINA

    109 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-12220 August 8, 1960 - PAULINO J. GARCIA, ET AL. v. PANFILO LEJANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. L-12730 August 22, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. AMADOR D. GARCIA

    109 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. L-12909 August 24, 1960 - FRANCISCO CRISOLOGO v. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. L-14637 August 24, 1960 - ATTY. RODRIGO MATUTINA v. JUDGE TEOFILO B. BUSLON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-15128 August 25, 1960 - CECILIO DIEGO v. SEGUNDO FERNANDO

    109 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-13105 August 25, 1960 - LUCINA BAITO v. ANATALIO SARMIENTO

    109 Phil 148

  • G.R. Nos. L-14684-86 August 26, 1960 - CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-15315 August 26, 1960 - ABUNDIO MERCED v. HON. CLEMENTINO V. DIEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-15822 August 26, 1960 - MEGIDA TINTIANGCO, ETC., ET AL. v. HON. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-9965 August 29, 1960 - LUCINA BIGLANGAWA, ET AL. v. PASTOR. B. CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14427 August 29, 1960 - BATANGAS TRANS. CO. v. GALICANO A. RIVERA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-14461 August 29, 1960 - BONIFACIO MERCADO v. PAULO M. MERCADO

    109 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-14518 August 29, 1960 - EUGENIA NELAYAN, ET AL. v. CECILIA NELAYAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. L-14903 August 29, 1960 - KOPPEL INC. v. DANILO DARLUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-14904 August 29, 1960 - CONSUELO ARRANZ, ET AL. v. VENERACION BARBERS ARRANZ

    109 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-15076 August 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE FERRER v. HON. E. L. DE LEON, ETC.

    109 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-9576 August 31, 1960 - SIXTA VENGASO, ETC. v. CENON BUENCAMINO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-9786 August 31, 1960 - ROSITA MASANGCAY, ET AL. v. MARCELO VALENCIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. L-10111 August 31, 1960 - SOLEDAD ROBLES, ET AL. v. ISABEL MANAHAN DE SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. L-11910 August 31, 1960 - PLASLU v. BOGO-MEDELLIN MILLING CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-11944 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC., ET AL. v. ARSENIO BONIFACIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-12005 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FRAGA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. L-12020 August 31, 1960 - FELIXBERTO BULAHAN, ET AL. v. JUAN E. TUASON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-12286 August 31, 1960 - JOSE JAVELLANA, ET AL. v. FELICIDAD JAVELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. L-12486 August 31, 1960 - LEONOR GRANA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. L-12597 August 31, 1960 - FERMIN LACAP, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC.

    109 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-12781 August 31, 1960 - PHIL. RACING CLUB, INC. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-12790 August 31, 1960 - JOEL JIMENEZ v. REMEDIOS CAÑIZARES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. L-12898 August 31, 1960 - ESTANISLAO PABUSTAN v. HON. PASTOR DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 278

  • G.R. Nos. L-13129 & L-13179-80 August 31, 1960 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED UNIONS COUNCIL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-13162 August 31, 1960 - C. N. HODGES v. HON. FRANCISCO ARELLANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. L-13177 August 31, 1960 - SWEE DIN TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 287

  • G.R. Nos. L-13219-20 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO CRUZ

    109 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-13281 August 31, 1960 - SIARI VALLEY ESTATES, INC. v. FILEMON LUCASAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-13353 August 31, 1960 - DOLORES NARAG v. SALVADOR CECILIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-13581 August 31, 1960 - EPIFANIO S. CESE v. GSIS

    109 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-13801 August 31, 1960 - PAULINA BAUTISTA v. LEONCIO DACANAY, ET AL.

    109 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. L-14101 August 31, 1960 - ADRIANA DE BLANCO v. STA. CLARA TRANS. CO.

    109 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14107 August 31, 1960 - MIGUEL MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. RICARDO TANCINCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. L-14184 August 31, 1960 - IN RE: PABLO UY YAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-14357 August 31, 1960 - JOHANNA H. BORROMEO v. EZEQUIEL ZABALLERO, SR.

    109 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-14363 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    109 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-14601 August 31,1960

    PNB v. EMILIANO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-14835 August 31, 1960 - PONCIANO MEDEL, ET AL. v. JULIAN CALASANZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. L-14959 August 31, 1960 - REPUBLIC SAVINGS BANK v. FAR EASTERN SURETY & INS. CO., INC.

    109 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-15153 August 31, 1960 - LUCIO BALONAN v. EUSEBIA ABELLANA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-15186 August 31, 1960 - GONZALO G. DE GUZMAN v. ALFREDO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    109 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-15325 August 31, 1960 - PROV’L. FISCAL OF RIZAL v. HON. JUDGE CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-15375 August 31, 1960 - BALTAZAR RAGPALA, ET AL. v. J. P. OF TUBOD, LANAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-15474 August 31, 1960 - ALFREDO B. SAULO v. BRIG. GEN. PELAGIO CRUZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-15590 August 31, 1960 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC. v. CORAZON SEGOVIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-15633 August 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO D. ALA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 390