G.R. No. L-29927




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-29927 March 15, 1929 THE PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., applicant-appellee, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, oppositor-appellant. Ross, Lawrence and Selph and Antonio Carrascoso, Jr., for appellant. Ariston I. Rivera for appellee. OSTRAND, J.: On November 26, 1926, Inocencio M. Delgado made an application to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience for the operation of an autotruck service for transportation of freight and passengers between Las Pinas-Divisoria Market, Cavite-Quiapo Market, Quiapo-La Farola, San Lazaro Race Course-Balic Balic Cockpit and Sampaloc-Quinta Market with fixed routes and regular termini. After due publication and hearing, the application was granted on January 11, 1927. Delgado operated the autotruck service until the latter part on December 1927, when he transferred the enterprise to the Pasay Transportation Company, which transfer was approved by the Public Service Commission on March 14, 1928. On March 30, 1928, The Pasay Transportation Company filed a motion with the Public Service Commission praying for authority to operate a half-hour service between F.B. Harrison St. and Divisoria Market, but running a fifteen minute service during heavy traffic. The Manila Electric Company, operating the street-car service of the City of Manila, opposed the motion, but on May 25, 1928, the Public Service Commission granted said motion and issued an order granting the Pasay Transportation Company to operate an autotruck service, for the transportation of freight and passengers, between F.B. Harrison Street in Pasay, and Divisoria Market in the City of Manila, passing through the following streets: Libertad and Dominga in Pasay, and Vito Cruz, Singalong, San Andres, Dart, Paco Market, Dart, Looban, Isaac Peral, Marques de Comillas, Miranda, Evangelista, Raon, Ongpin Gandara, Nueva, Ongpin, Plaza de Binondo, Puerte del Real Blanco and Santo Cristo, in the City of Manila. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the Manila Electric Co. and denied by the Public Service Commission on June 13, 1928, whereupon the Manila Electric Co. appealed to this court and now makes the following assignments of error: 1. The Public Service Commission erred in entering its order of May 25, 1928, authorizing the appellee to operate an auto-truck service between F.B. Harrison Street, in Pasay, (Rizal) and Divisoria Market, in the City of Manila. 2. The Public Service Commission erred in Overruling appellant's motion for reconsideration of the said order of the Commission on May 25, 1928. While on their face the assignments of order go only to the of May 25, 1928, the appellant's argument relates principally to the order of January 11, 1927, granting Delgado's application and the burden of that argument is that the order for the publication of the hearing of the application contained no statement to the effect that Delgado had applied for authority to transport freight or carry passengers between intermediate points and that therefore the appellant did not raise any objection to the application at that time. We can find but little contention. Delgado's application was accompanied by complete schedules containing lists of streets and fares to be charged at intermediate points. These schedules were open to public inspection, and their contents could easily have been ascertained by the appellant. The application itself was sufficient to put the appellant on its guard, and its failure to make the necessary inquiries can only be regarded as negligence; it could hardly be expected that the order of publication would contain all the details pertaining to the application. The point in question was not raised until over a year after a certificate of public convenience was issued, and it is now too late to ask for the cancellation of the said certificate. Neither can we find any reversible error in the order of May 25, 1928. The order does not call for any change in the original routes but relates only to transportation rates and stopping places. From the evidence presented, we cannot find the order in question will create an unfair and unreasonable competition to such an extent as to call for the intervention of this court; we can only modify or set aside an order of the Public Service Commission "when it clearly appears that there is no evidence before the Commission to support reasonably such order, or that the same was without the jurisdiction of the Commission" (Sec. 35, Act No. 3108). The orders appealed from are affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered. Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation