Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > August 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17992 August 30, 1963 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSP. CO., INC. v. EMILIANO DEL ROSARIO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17992. August 30, 1963.]

A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., BICOL TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., and CONSOLIDATED AUTO LINES, INC., Petitioners, v. EMILIANO DEL ROSARIO, Respondent.

Manuel O. Chan and Vicente Ampil, for Petitioners.

Faustino V . Cancehela for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; FINANCIAL ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH PASSENGER BUS LINE; JUDICIAL NOTICE OF EXPENSES INVOLVED. — This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that trucks are expensive and costly, that to provide them with the necessary bodies and tires considerable capital is demanded, and that for the operator of a passenger bus line to establish a reasonably satisfactory service and insure the safety of its passengers with a reasonable degree of success, not only must his equipment be in reasonably good condition but sufficient capital must be had on hand to begin the operation of the business to enable it to pay drivers, mechanics and other employees required to maintain it efficiently.

2. ID.; ID.; DISCRETION OF COURT TO DETERMINE; CASE AT BAR. — While the law does not fix the amount necessary for the establishment of a passenger bus line and this matters left to the discretion of the Public Service Commission, yet the evidence in the case at bar shows that the financial condition of the respondent-appellee renders it impossible for him to run the public service he has been authorized to establish and operate and thereafter maintain it efficiently and successfully.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from a decision of the Public Service Commission authorizing the respondent Emiliano del Rosario to operate four passenger trucks from Tiwi to Naga City and one passenger truck from Tiwi to Legaspi City, which decision was rendered on December 22, 1960. In approving the application of respondent to operate the trucks, the Public Service Commission found that applicant "is financially capable of maintaining and operating the service applied for."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petitioners herein are transportation companies engaged in transporting passengers in the Bicol regions, and operate various lines throughout the provinces of Albay and Camarines Sur, which lines appear delineated on a road map of southeastern Luzon attached to their brief. The petitioners-appellants claim that the applicant, respondent Emiliano Del Rosario, is not financially capable of establishing the service granted to him by the Public Service Commission.

The evidence submitted at the trial by the applicant-respondent himself to prove his financial capacity to establish, maintain and operate the passenger truck lines granted to him by the Public Service Commission consists of his own testimony, which is to the effect that he has commercial property consisting of four hectares valued at P14,000 in the commercial districts of Pasig, Rizal; that he has a residential house in Makati, Rizal on a lot containing an area of 600 square meters, which residential house and lot are valued at P20,000 and rented at the rate of P100 monthly; that he is a driver of the Encinas Transit receiving approximately five or six pesos a day, in which position he has been employed for seven months.

Petitioners-appellants argue before us that even with the alleged landholdings of the respondent the latter does not have the financial capacity or means to undertake the proposed operation of the public service authorized, for the reason that motor trucks can be acquired these days only at very high prices; so, the fair market value of the respondent’s properties would not be sufficient to raise the amounts necessary to make the down payment for the five auto trucks authorized and thereafter defray the expenses for the construction of the bodies thereof.

Petitioners-appellants further argue that upon examination of the tax rolls for the municipality of Pasig, Rizal in the assessor’s office for the province of Rizal, no piece of real estate appears to have been declared for taxation purposes in the name of applicant- respondent Emiliano del Rosario. They further claim that they have found out that a tax declaration for a house and lot belonging to applicant-respondent situated in the barrio of Olympia in the municipality of Makati has a total assessment of only P1,780, the lot containing an area of 279 square meters and not 600 square meters as claimed. Attached to the memorandum presented by the petitioners- appellants are Annex "A" showing that Emiliano del Rosario does not appear in the tax rolls of the municipality of Pasig; Annex "B" certifying that Emiliano del Rosario’s property in the municipality of Makati consists of a house and lot, the lot being 279 square meters assessed at P700 and the house assessed at P1,800.00; Annex "C" which shows that on January 30, 1962 Emiliano del Rosario had registered with the Motor Vehicles Office only one Chevrolet truck; and lastly, Annex "D", where it appears that since the year 1961 Emiliano del Rosario has not registered new trucks in the Motor Vehicles Office.

Replying to the brief and the memorandum of the petitioners- appellants, respondents argues "that there is no law or jurisprudence which requires with exactitude in terms of money and property the financial standing of an applicant for public service" and that it is the Public Service Commission which can best determine whether applicant has sufficient capacity or not. Subsequently, in a motion presented to this Court on April 15, 1963, counsel for respondent Emiliano del Rosario has petitioned the Court to admit evidence of the fact that the movant-appellee Del Rosario has successfully acquired and subsequently registered with the Motor Vehicles Office all the five units authorized to be operated. No supporting evidence of the fact of such acquisition and registration alleged in the motion has, however, been submitted.

Upon the facts stated above this Court cannot do otherwise than to reverse the finding of the Public Service Commission that applicant-respondent has the required financial means or ability to establish the passenger lines applied for and authorized in the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that trucks are very expensive and costly. The Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that to provide trucks with the necessary bodies and tires, all of which are expensive, considerable capital is demanded. And in order that an operator of a passenger line can establish a reasonably satisfactory service and insure the safety of its passengers and with a reasonable degree of success, not only must the equipment be in reasonably good condition but sufficient capital must be had on hand to begin the operation of the business to enable it to pay drivers, mechanics and other employees required to maintain it efficiently. It is true that the law does not fix the amount necessary for the establishment of the business and that this matter is left to the discretion of the Public Service Commission; but the evidence submitted reasonably satisfies us that the financial condition of the respondent-appellee renders it impossible for him to run the public service he has been authorized to establish and operate and thereafter maintain it efficiently and successfully.

The alleged subsequent registration of trucks in the name of the respondent without the presentation of the corresponding certificates of registration, nor evidence of the condition of the registered trucks, or of the fact that the said trucks do not belong to any other individual (for if they do belong to another individual respondent would only be a dummy of said individual, can not in any way change the above finding of this Court that the applicant-respondent does not have the financial ability to establish, maintain and operate the public service utility authorized.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, set aside and the application of the applicant-respondent denied. Without costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, 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-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18439 August 21, 1963 - MARIA VDA. DE SOTTO v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20864 August 23, 1963 - ELPIDIO VALENCIA v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-17290 August 29, 1963 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. MANILA TRADING LABOR ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. L-18782 August 29, 1963 - BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. PHIL. ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-15255 August 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN MALAT

  • G.R. No. L-17011 August 30, 1963 - EMMA S. ACENAS, ET AL. v. ANGELA SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17327 August 30, 1963 - C. N. HODGES v. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA

  • G.R. No. L-17992 August 30, 1963 - A. L. AMMEN TRANSP. CO., INC. v. EMILIANO DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-18352 August 30, 1963 - AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ETC., ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-19250 August 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO MESSIAS

  • G.R. No. L-16251 August 31, 1963 - ROSA M. VDA. DE ZABALJAURREGUI v. LUZON SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16411 August 31, 1963 - RODRIGO COLOSO v. DOMINGO DE JESUS

  • G.R. No. L-17343 August 31, 1963 - ISIDRO SORIENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-17402 August 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-17815 August 31, 1963 - CEFERINO DE LOS SANTOS, SR., ET AL., v. SEBASTIAN C. PALANCA

  • G.R. No. L-17828 August 31, 1963 - LIGAYA MINA, ET AL., v. ANTONIO PACSON, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17874 August 31, 1963 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17994 August 31, 1963 - FEDERICO BATOLANON, ET AL., v. ROMAN A. LEORENTE

  • G.R. No. L-18011 August 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO LADISLA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18137 August 31, 1963 - ROSELLER T. LIM, ET AL., v. PACITA DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18170 August 31, 1963 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION OF THE PHIL. v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18247 August 31, 1963 - FLORENTINO GALLEGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18277 August 31, 1963 - GUALBERTO CRUZ v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18334 August 31, 1963 - FILEMON DIONELA, ET AL., v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18373 August 31, 1963 - TEOFILO TALAVERA v. VICTOR MAÑGOBA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18532 August 31, 1963 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NARCISO VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. L-18667 August 31, 1963 - ANDRES VIVAR v. ANTONIO VIVAR

  • G.R. No. L-20783 August 31, 1963 - EMILIANO M. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS