Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > October 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21964 October 19, 1966 MANDALUYONG BUS CO., INC., ET AL. v. LUIS ENRIQUE:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21964. October 19, 1966.]

MANDALUYONG BUS CO., INC., DIONISIO MANALOTO, HERMINIA PASCO, SOLEDAD SAN AGUSTIN, BLAS REYES, ANASTACIO ESMAO, MAXIMO REYES, MANDBUSCO, INC., and MERCEDES CLEMENTE, Petitioners, v. LUIS ENRIQUE, Respondent.

Clemente & Clemente Law Offices, for Petitioners.

Emigdio Arcilla for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE; UNAUTHORIZED OPERATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES DONE IN GOOD FAITH; CASE AT BAR. — There is evidence that prior to the filing of his application, respondent was already operating four (4) jeepneys without first procuring a certificate of public convenience. While unauthorized operation of public utilities should not be countenanced, stern necessity takes respondent’s case out of the rigidity of the rule which normally bars approval of his application. It appears that with the collapse of the bridge at Rosario, Pasig, and the closure to vehicular traffic of another bridge, commuters in great number found themselves stranded. This circumstance induced what is locally coined as "colorum" operation of about 30 jeepneys. And when the municipal council of Pasig offered direct help to procure the approval of their certificates of public convenience, respondent filed promptly his application. From all appearances, respondent’s was an operation in good faith. It was in response to a pressing need. The interests of the commuters are paramount. (Re United Parcel Service of Los Angeles, Inc., P. U. R. 1926E, 321, 341; Re Pless and Davis, P. U. R. 1928B, 783, 786.)

2. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT ON PUBLIC NECESSITY AND CONVENIENCE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. — The findings of fact of the Commission on the question of public necessity and convenience are amply sustained by the record. The very fact that about 30 unauthorized jeeps ply along the line applied for, furnishes a clear indicium that the services of the existing authorized operators did not meet the public demand. (La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Mendiola. L-19558, April 29, 1966.)

3. ID.; ID.; WHEN OLD OPERATORS NOT ENTITLED TO PREFERENCE TO INCREASE THEIR EQUIPMENT. — There is no merit to petitioners’ averment that, as established operators, they should be given preference to increase their equipment. Because, they failed in their obligation to apply for such increase at the time when necessity arose. (Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. City of Davao, Et Al., L-23080, September 20, 1965.)

4. ID.; ID.; PROOF OF FINANCIAL CAPACITY; CASE AT BAR. — The approved equipment is only for eight jeeps, of which respondent already had five at the time of his testimony. He is a businessman. He owns a P15,000 rock-and-adobe quarry, where he derives an income of about P180.00 a week. He has an P18,000 investment in the textile store of his wife. These are facts which prove his financial capacity.


D E C I S I O N


SANCHEZ, J.:


Review of a decision of the Public Service Commission 1 granting respondent Luis Enrique a certificate of public convenience to operate eight (8) PUJ jeepneys on a six-kilometer line: Bambang (Pasig, Rizal)-Epifanio de los Santos Avenue corner Shaw Boulevard (Mandaluyong, Rizal), via poblacion of Pasig.

Following are the facts found by the Commission:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We find that on the line applied for there are several buses that pass . . . but most of these buses come from long distant provinces and they do not usually pick up passengers on the way whose destinations are near. The proposed service will benefit not only the residents living along the line but also those who are working in the various factories and business establishments situated within the vicinity of the proposed line. However, we find that the grant of eight (8) jitneys will be sufficient to serve those commuters on the proposed line.

Finding further that applicant is a Filipino citizen and financially capable to operate and maintain the proposed service, the Commission believes that the certificate of public convenience applied for may be as it is hereby GRANTED to the applicant, . . ." 2

1. Drawing our attention, at the outset, is the evidence that prior to the application, respondent was already operating four (4) jeepneys without first procuring a certificate of public convenience. We would not have hesitated to clamp down on this application, were it not for the peculiar circumstances of this case. The evidence of record discloses that, with the collapse of the bridge at Rosario, and the closure to vehicular traffic of the Vargas bridge at Bagong Ilog, Pasig, commuters in great number found themselves stranded. These were mostly of the laboring class. Although, of course, there were also school children, employees and merchants among them. This circumstance induced what is locally coined as "colorum" operation of about 30 jeepneys. The Municipal Council of Pasig took stock of the situation and, on September 17, 1962, adopted Resolution 211, whereunder it took a direct hand, rounded the unlicensed operators, and offered direct help to procure the approval of their certificates of public convenience. Respondent filed his application on the following day, September 18.

Unauthorized operation of public utilities should not be countenanced. It would seem though that stern necessity should take respondent’s case out of the rigidity of the rules which normally should bar approval of his application. From all appearances, respondent’s case was an operation in good faith. It was in response to a pressing need. At least, respondent exhibited no willful disregard of the law — he promptly filed his application. 3 The interests of the commuters are paramount. 4

Respondent’s application should not be turned down on this score.

2. An examination of the record convinces us that the findings of fact of the Commission on the question of public necessity and convenience are amply sustained by the record. The evidence for respondent on this point finds full support in the following, culled from the transcript of the testimony of Arturo Clemente — witness for petitioners — viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Q. Mr. Clemente, the applicant claims that there is need for additional unit on the line. What can you say as to that?

A. I agree that there is need for additional equipment." 5

And if more were still needed, the very fact that about 30 unauthorized jeeps ply along the six-kilometer line, furnished a clear indicium that the services of the existing authorized operators did not meet the public demand. 6 The truth of the matter is that petitioners here operate on extended lines, going to Quiapo and coming from as far as Sta. Maria, Jalajala, Tanay, Antipolo and Pililla, 7 with the result that when petitioners’ buses pass by the short line applied for, they are usually filed. 8

3. Neither is there merit to petitioners’ averment that, as established operators, they should be given preference to increase their equipment. Because, they failed in their obligation to apply for such increase at the time when necessity arose. 9 Since the route applied for is short, petitioners overlooked public necessity, as it would not advance their private interests. At any rate, the Public Service Commission has spoken. In the factual environment here, we are unprepared to say that discretion was abused. For, the Commission took into account as overriding, public interest and convenience. 10

4. As unsubstantial is petitioners’ claim that respondent’s financial capacity is not beyond question. The approved equipment is only for eight jeeps, of which he already had due at the time of his testimony. He is a businessman, a partner in a ricemill and flower pot factory. He owns a P15,000 rock-and-adobe quarry in Teresa, Rizal, where he derives an income of about P180.00 a week. He has an P18,00 investment in the Central Market textile store of his wife. These are facts which prove his financial capacity.

Upon the foregoing, the judgment under review is affirmed. Costs against petitioners. So ordered.

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

Endnotes:



1. Case No. 62-5380, Public Service Commission, Luis Enrique, applicant.

2. Record, p. 139.

3. Re Maryville Electric Light & Power Co., P.U.R. 1927C, 453, 455.

4. Re United Parcel Service of Los Angeles, Inc., P.U.R. 1926E. 321, 341; Re Pesa and Davis, P.U.R. 1928B, 783, 786.

5. Record, p. 119.

6. La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Mendiola, L-19558, April 29, 1966.

7. Record, p. 118.

8. Testimony of respondent, Record, p. 73.

9. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. City of Davao, Et Al., L-23080, September 20, 1965.

10. Valle Bros, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, Et Al., L- 18694. January 31, 1966.




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






October-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25554 October 4, 1966 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ISMAEL MATHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22369 October 15, 1966 IN RE: JOAQUIN CORDERA v. JOSE GONDA

  • G.R. No. L-21732 October 17, 1966 SANTOS CHAN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-21964 October 19, 1966 MANDALUYONG BUS CO., INC., ET AL. v. LUIS ENRIQUE

  • G.R. No. L-17106 October 19, 1966 FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INES CHAVES & CO., LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17633 October 19, 1966 CIRILO LIM v. BASILISA DIAZ-MILLAREZ

  • G.R. Nos. L-20834 and L-20903 October 19, 1966 ARMANDO L. ABAD v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-17631 October 19, 1966 INTER-ISLAND GAS SERVICE, INC. v. BRIGIDO DE LA CERNA

  • G.R. No. L-19704 October 19, 1966 TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO CABANOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19122 October 19, 1966 PEDRO DE LA CONCHA, ET AL. v. IRINEO MAGTIRA

  • G.R. No. L-22184 October 20, 1966 JOSE C. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21793 October 20, 1966 PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. REMEDIOS OCFEMIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17456 October 22, 1966 GELACIO E. TUMAMBING v. MAURO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22562 October 22, 1966 LEON S. PIÑERO, ET AL. v. RUFINO HECHANOVA

  • G.R. No. L-21283 October 22, 1966 ADRIANO AMANTE v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-16893 October 22, 1966 COLLECTOR (now COMMISSIONER) OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. TAN ENG HONG

  • G.R. No. L-21005 October 22, 1966 LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22224 October 24, 1966 ALFREDO BER. PALARCA v. ABUNDIO ARRIETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26227-28 October 25, 1966 J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. MADRIGAL & Co., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18176 October 26, 1966 LAZARO B. RAYRAY v. CHAE KYUNG LEE

  • G.R. No. L-20200 October 28, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO GAGUI

  • G.R. No. L-22974 October 28, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. C. F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22601 October 28, 1966 PRIMA G. CARRILLO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCA SALAK DE PAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20600 October 28, 1966 MARINO J. BAUTISTA v. JUAN DE BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-22034 October 28, 1966 PEDRO NATAÑO, ET AL. v. SENEN ESTEBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21841 October 28, 1966 ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23448 October 28, 1966 ESTEBAN M. SADANG, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16626 October 29, 1966 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CARLOS PALANCA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-25469 October 29, 1966 ELIGIO T. LEYVA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16890 October 29, 1966 RUSTICO GADDI v. DOMINGO M. CABAÑGON

  • G.R. No. L-20965 October 29, 1966 JOHNNY SORITA, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19048 October 29, 1966 CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC. v. LA UNION UNITED WORKERS ASSOCIATION (PLUM,)

  • G.R. No. L-26421 October 29, 1966 KEATER HUANG, ET AL. v. ASSOCIATED REALTY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24583 October 29, 1966 MAGDALENA SIBULO VDA. DE MESA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS

  • G.R. No. L-15090 October 29, 1966 PHILIPPINE MILLING COMPANY, ET AL. v. CELSO LLOBREGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23908 October 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENANCIO H. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23162 October 29, 1966 CONSUELO CARAAN-MEDINA v. CARMELO Q. QUIZON

  • G.R. Nos. L-22429 and L-22430 October 29, 1966 ANG FANG, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22092 October 29, 1966 ANTONIO MAGALLANES v. HEIRS OF LEON SARITA

  • G.R. No. L-22076 October 29, 1966 IN RE: DY BU SIA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17634 October 29, 1966 CATALINA PONS CALDERON, ET AL. v. LEONARDO MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-22070 October 29, 1966 RESURRECCION VDA. DE STA. ANA v. RODOLFO RIVERA

  • G.R. No. L-21904 October 29, 1966 J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. EMILIO DE LA ROSA

  • G.R. No. L-21599 October 29, 1966 IN RE: SIMEON CHUAH TAK SENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21202 October 29, 1966 LEONARDO ABUYO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION B. DE SUAZO

  • G.R. No. L-20457 October 29, 1966 ELTON W. CHASE v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26511 October 29, 1966 PIO FELWA, ET AL. v. RAFAEL SALAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25795 October 29, 1966 ANGELINA MEJIA LOPEZ, ET AL. v. CITY JUDGE, ET AL.