G.R. No. L-40315




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-40315 March 27, 1934 MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. AUSTIN TAXICAB CO., respondent-appellee. L.D. Lockwood, Pedro Vera, Laurel, Del Rosario and Lualhati, Basilio Francisco, Gibbs and McDonough and Roman Ozaeta for appellants. Feria and La O for appellant Ana Viuda de Corominas. Mariano Ezpeleta for appellee. HULL, J.: The Austin Taxicab Co. has secured from the Public Service Commission a certificate of public convenience to operate twenty midget taxicabs in the City of Manila and its suburbs. From that decision the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and its co-appellants who are taxicab operators in the City of Manila and its suburbs bring this appeal.1ªvvphi1.ne+ During the hearing, the president and general-manager of the Austin Taxicab Co. was examined as to the nature of the company, and from his evidence it is clear that it is purely a dummy company without a bank account and without any real financial responsibility. A permit to operate a fleet of taxicabs is not one of right, but it is a privilege granted by the State. It should not be granted to one unable or unwilling to meet his responsibilities to the public, for example, the ability to respond in damages to a passenger who has been injured through the negligence of a chauffeur of the company. In the absence of any evidence reasonably to satisfy the requirement of financial responsibility, the certificate of public convenience in this case should not have been granted. The orders of the Public Service Commission here questioned are therefore vacated and set aside. Costs against appellee. So ordered. Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Imperial, JJ., concur. Separate Opinions GODDARD, J., concurring: I concur on the ground set forth in this decision and on those stated in my dissenting opinion in the companion cases, G.R. Nos. L-40317 and 40319¹— E. Vesnan, applicant. MALCOLM and BUTTE, JJ., dissenting: We dissent for the reasons stated in our separate opinion attached to the case of Esmeralda Vesnan, petitioner and appellant, vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., et al., respondents and appellees.² Footnotes ¹Page 792, post. ²Page 787, post. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation