EN BANC
[G.R. No. 38614. September 18, 1933. ]
MIGUEL R. MATEO, applicant-appellee, v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, opponent-appellant.
Ross, Lawrence & Selph, for Appellant.
Juan R. Mateo, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PUBLIC SERVICE; WORDS AND PHRASES. — A limitation applying to street-cars does not a necessity apply to auto-busses operating under similar conditions.
2. ID.; INTERPRETATION AND DECISION OF MEANING OF ITS OWN ORDERS BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. — It is especially the function of the Public Service Commission to interpret and decide the meaning of its own orders. The commission’s application of the limitation on the certificate of public convenience to the facts of this case was in strict accord with the letter of said limitation.
2. ID.; INTERPRETATION AND DECISION OF MEANING OF ITS OWN ORDERS BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. — It is especially the function of the Public Service Commission to interpret and decide the meaning of its own orders. The commission’s application of the limitation on the certificate of public convenience to the facts of this case was in strict accord with the letter of said limitation.
D E C I S I O N
HULL, J.:
The Manila Electric Company seeks a review of the decision of the Public Service Commission rendered October 18, 1932, holding that the limitation in the certificate of public convenience and necessity held by Mateo has not been violated. The provision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Se le prohibe a la cesionaria tomar pasajeros desde un punto servido por los tranvias de la Manila Electric Company, para llevarlos a otro punto servido por la misma compañia."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Manila Electric Company contends that there is no difference between its street-cars and its busses and that the limitation placed in the certificate by the Public Service Commission should be so construed.
It is especially the function of the Public Service Commission to interpret and decide the meaning of its own orders. The commission’s application of the limitation above quoted to the facts of the present case appears to be in strict accord with the letter of the limiting clause.
The orders in question are therefore affirmed. Costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos and Imperial, JJ., concur.
"Se le prohibe a la cesionaria tomar pasajeros desde un punto servido por los tranvias de la Manila Electric Company, para llevarlos a otro punto servido por la misma compañia."cralaw virtua1aw library
The Manila Electric Company contends that there is no difference between its street-cars and its busses and that the limitation placed in the certificate by the Public Service Commission should be so construed.
It is especially the function of the Public Service Commission to interpret and decide the meaning of its own orders. The commission’s application of the limitation above quoted to the facts of the present case appears to be in strict accord with the letter of the limiting clause.
The orders in question are therefore affirmed. Costs against the appellant. So ordered.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos and Imperial, JJ., concur.
