Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-42590 March 23, 1935
PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner-appellant,
vs.
PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY and MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents-appellees.
Rivera and Bonifacio for appellant.
L.D. Lockwood for appellee Pampanga Bus Company.
Ross, Lawrence and Selph for appellee Manila Electric Company.
MALCOLM, J.:
There are applications of the Manila Electric Company and the Pampanga Bus Company for approval of a joint fare system. The Public Service Commission found, against the opposition of the Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., that the proposed joint fare system will be beneficial for those incoming and outgoing passengers who wish to avail themselves thereof, and such being the case, approved the applications as to the transfer point at the intersection of Blumentritt Street and Rizal Avenue in the City of Manila. From this decision the petitioner has brought the case here on review.
The Manila Electric Company operates a street railway and autobus transportation system within Manila and its suburbs. The Pampanga Bus Company operates an autobus transportation system between Manila and several provinces to the North. The Pasay Transportation Company, Inc., operates an autobus transportation system within Manila and its suburbs. The lines of the Manila Electric Company and the Pampanga Bus Company come in contract at the intersection of Blumentritt Street and Rizal Avenue in Manila. The purpose of the applications was to secure authority to enforce a joint fare system with transfers in relation to the point of contract of the lines as above indicated.
The representative of the Manila Electric Company in his testimony before the Public Service Commission gave a description of how the proposed joint fare would work. It was shown that such a system would serve the convenience of the public and would effect a saving in time and money for the public. Indeed this result is so self-evidence as hardly to require evidence to support it. Being true, the Public Service Commission had authority to find a public need, and in accordance with the powers conferred on the commission, to make the necessary order. In other words, the case did not present imaginary benefits standing in contrast to real benefits; unfair and ruinous competition standing in contrast to lower rates and better service for the public, and an arbitrary and unreasonable decision standing in contrast to a fair and reasonable decision. Also the result was obtained without being violative of the deed of sale entered into by the Pampanga Bus Company and the Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., for the reason that the Pampanga Bus Company has not asked for a certificate of public convenience.
Overruling the five assigned errors, the decision of the Public Service Commission will be informed, the petitioner to pay the costs of this instance.
Villa-Real, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
