SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-37336 July 26, 1932

RURAL TRANSIT CO., LTD., Petitioner, vs. ANASTACIO R. TEODORO, Associate Commissioner, Public Service Commission,
and SANTOS-RELUCIO-SORIANO, now LEON M. SANTOS, Respondents.

Juan Nabong and Mariano Ezpeleta for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.

STREET,BUTTE, J.:

This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of mandamus. On April 22, 1932, in Baguio, Justice Malcolm in vacation, heard the petition and denied the writ. The motion for reconsideration was filed on April 30, 1932. On May 4, 1932, Justice Malcolm denied the motion, but, reading it as an appeal, ordered same to be reported to this court in July.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The essential facts are as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

The Rural Transit Company filed two complaints against the respondent Santos-Relucio-Soriano before the Public Service Commission, asking that the respondent's certificate of convenience to operate motor bus lines as follows:

Cabiao - Manila via Bulacanchanrobles virtual law library

Cabiao - Manila via Pampangachanrobles virtual law library

Cabiao - San Fernando

be cancelled for failure of the respondent to operate these lines for a period of four consecutive days. Under the rules of the Public Service Commission, such failure ipso facto cancelled the certificate. On March 9, 1932, the complaints were called up for hearing but before any evidence was submitted by the complainant, the commission dismissed the complaints, it appearing that the respondent admitted his default, and that his certificate from Cabiao to Manila was cancelled. But the commission, in its discretion, allowed him to continue operating a part of the line, namely Cabiao-Arayat. The Rural Transit Company objects to the act of the commission in allowing the respondent to operate the line Cabiao-Arayat.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As this is a matter within the discretion of the Public Service Commission, and as the commission has made a decision of the Rural Transit Company's complaints, however wrong that decision may, in the opinion of the petitioner, be - it is clear that the mandamus does not lie.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

A petition for review, as provided in Act No. 3108, would have been the proper procedure.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The decision of the Vacation Justice, denying the writ, is affirmed, and this appeal is dismissed by the court in banc this 13th day of July, 1932.

Avance�a, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers and Imperial, JJ., concur.