EN BANC
[G.R. No. 38561. September 5, 1933. ]
FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC., Respondent-Appellee.
Juan Nabong and A. M. Zarate, for Appellant.
L. D. Lockwood, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PUBLIC SERVICE; PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS; FAILURE TO SHOW INTEREST IN THE CASE; DISMISSAL. — In the absence of showing of any interest in the case, petitioner has no standing in this court, and his petition for review of an order of the Public Service Commission must be dismissed, with costs.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — This court will not spend its time deciding questions the resolution of which cannot affect the rights of the persons presenting them (Beech v. Crossfield, 12 Phil., 555-558).
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — This court will not spend its time deciding questions the resolution of which cannot affect the rights of the persons presenting them (Beech v. Crossfield, 12 Phil., 555-558).
D E C I S I O N
HULL, J.:
Petitioner seeks a review of an order of the Public Service Commission declining to reopen and set aside certain orders relative to the Respondent. The Public Service Commission after hearing petitioner held that the schedule granted to the Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., in no manner affected the rights of the petitioner, whereupon petitioner comes here, admits he has failed to show in what way he is injuriously affected, but claims nevertheless a right to be heard and prays that we examine and pass upon the validity of the orders of the Public Service Commission granting certain optional hours to respondent on its Masantol-Macabebe-San Fernando route.
Petitioner is the holder of a certificate of public convenience for a route, Masantol-Macabebe-Manila, and therefore for a short distance the two routes coincide, but they are not competitors as petitioner holds a restrictive license as to local passengers.
This court will not spend its time deciding questions the resolution of which cannot affect the rights of the persons presenting them. (Beech v. Crossfield, 12 Phil., 555-558.)
In the absence of showing of any interest in the case, petitioner has no standing in this court, and the petition for review must be and is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
On the assumption that the case had been submitted, a decision was promulgated August 22, 1933. 1 The case was orally argued on August 24, 1933. It has been reconsidered by the court, and this decision takes the place of that formerly entered. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur.
Petitioner is the holder of a certificate of public convenience for a route, Masantol-Macabebe-Manila, and therefore for a short distance the two routes coincide, but they are not competitors as petitioner holds a restrictive license as to local passengers.
This court will not spend its time deciding questions the resolution of which cannot affect the rights of the persons presenting them. (Beech v. Crossfield, 12 Phil., 555-558.)
In the absence of showing of any interest in the case, petitioner has no standing in this court, and the petition for review must be and is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
On the assumption that the case had been submitted, a decision was promulgated August 22, 1933. 1 The case was orally argued on August 24, 1933. It has been reconsidered by the court, and this decision takes the place of that formerly entered. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Malcolm, Villa-Real and Imperial, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Page 937, post.
