EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 39609 & 39643-39649. September 20, 1933. ]
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ACRO TAXICAB COMPANY, INC., MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., FRANCISCO JAVIER, ANA VIUDA DE COROMINAS, and FAUSTO BARREDO, Petitioners, v. CATALINO BALAGTAS, VICTORIA GARCIA, ENRIQUETA DEL CASAL, LUIS FAJARDO, ENGRACIA VENTURA, ISIDORO D. ORA, ISABEL ABLAZA, and RAFAEL TRIAS, Respondents.
Ross, Lawrence & Selph and Federico Agrava, for petitioner Manila Electric Company.
Rivera & Francisco, for petitioner Pasay Transportation Co., Inc.
Pedro Vera, for petitioner Acro Taxicab Company, Inc.
L. D. Lockwood, for petitioners Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., and Pampanga Bus Company.
Roman Ozaeta, for petitioner Javier.
Feria & La O and Ramon R. San Jose, for petitioner Vda. de Corominas.
Laurel, Del Rosario & Lualhati, for petitioner Barredo.
Courtney Whitney, for respondent Balagtas.
Menandro Quiogue, for respondents Garcia and Ventura.
Avelino Yatco & Samaniego, for respondent Del Casal.
Juan Nabong, for respondent Fajardo.
Jose A. Uy, for respondent Ora.
Pedro Valdez Liongson, for respondent Ablaza.
Virata & Chaves, for respondent Trias.
SYLLABUS
1. PUBLIC UTILITIES; REVIEW OF PUBLIC UTILITY CASES BY SUPREME COURT, FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN SUCH CASES. — When cases are brought on review from the Public Service Commission to the Supreme Court, to determine if the Public Service Commission acted rightly in granting certificates of public convenience, there is only one fundamental question before the appellate court, and this is whether or not it clearly appears that there was no evidence before the Public Service Commission to support reasonably its order granting certificates of public convenience, for the reason that the operation of the public utility and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner.
2. ID.; ID.; DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS IN MANILA AND SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES TRACED. — The development of means of transportation during the last thirty years in Manila and the municipalities surrounding the metropolis traced. Likewise, the same tendency to sanction progress is noted in the decisions of the Supreme Court which have had to do with public utilities. The cases of Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes ([1928], 52 Phil., 455), and of Carmelo and Oriol v. Monserrat ([1931], 55 Phil., 644), cited and analyzed. The basic thoughts in the mind of the court have ever been protection of investments and the convenience of the public.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF AUTOCALESAS TO SECURE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. — The word "autocalesa" is one of local coinage, recently invented in the City of Manila, and is applied to a certain kind of motor vehicle consisting of a chassis, mounted on three wheels, provided with one motor, which makes it quite similar to a motorcycle. The welfare of the public, particularly of the masses, will be advanced by permitting the autocalesas to operate.
2. ID.; ID.; DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS IN MANILA AND SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES TRACED. — The development of means of transportation during the last thirty years in Manila and the municipalities surrounding the metropolis traced. Likewise, the same tendency to sanction progress is noted in the decisions of the Supreme Court which have had to do with public utilities. The cases of Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes ([1928], 52 Phil., 455), and of Carmelo and Oriol v. Monserrat ([1931], 55 Phil., 644), cited and analyzed. The basic thoughts in the mind of the court have ever been protection of investments and the convenience of the public.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; RIGHT OF AUTOCALESAS TO SECURE CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. — The word "autocalesa" is one of local coinage, recently invented in the City of Manila, and is applied to a certain kind of motor vehicle consisting of a chassis, mounted on three wheels, provided with one motor, which makes it quite similar to a motorcycle. The welfare of the public, particularly of the masses, will be advanced by permitting the autocalesas to operate.
D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
These eight cases and a respectable number of other cases pending before the Public Service Commission relate to the right of various operators of autocalesas to secure the issuance of certificates of public convenience. More specifically, there is only one fundamental question before the appellate court, and this is whether or not it clearly appears that there was no evidence before the Public Service Commission to support reasonably its orders granting certificates of public convenience (Public Service Commission Act, No. 3108, sec. 35), for the reason that the operation of autocalesas in the City of Manila and outlying territory and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner (sec. 15 [i], as amended). In this connection it should be explained that the word "autocalesa" is one of local coinage, recently invented in the City of Manila, and is applied to a certain kind of motor vehicle consisting of a chassis, mounted on three wheels, provided with one motor, which makes it quite similar to a motorcycle.
The applicants are understood to be owners of horsedrawn carromatas. Their purpose is seeking authorization from the Public Service Commission for the operation of autocalesas is to substitute their horse-drawn vehicles with motorized units more in keeping with modern progress. The thought is that thereby these owners may endeavour to recoup losses occasioned horse-drawn carromatas through competition with electric line, bus, and taxicab fares. According to the applicants, carromatas are bound gradually to disappear from the streets of Manila.
In finding that public convenience would be advanced by permission to the autocalesas to operate in the City Manila and its suburbs, the Public Service Commission stressed the betterment of moral and sanitary conditions. However, an examination of the record discloses that other factors were emphasized in the course of the reception of the testimony and it is proper to take these factors into consideration. The chief of police of the City of Manila testified that the substitution of carromatas by motorized units would relieve traffic congestion to a great extent. The superintendent of the automobile division of the Bureau of Public Works testified that a larger revenue would be received from autocalesas than from carromatas. There was also evidence given to the effect that the masses of the people prefer motor vehicles to carromatas when they can afford to use them. The principal advocate of the autocalesas stated that his purpose was to serve not the middle class or the better class but the poor class. The conclusion, therefore, must be that there was evidence before the commission supporting in some degree at least its orders.
The oppositions of the Manila Electric Company and of the owners of buses and taxicabs center on the proposition that the public of Manila and its environs are adequately served by existing operators and that the operation of autocalesas would constitute ruinous competition against existing operators. It was argued that the co
The applicants are understood to be owners of horsedrawn carromatas. Their purpose is seeking authorization from the Public Service Commission for the operation of autocalesas is to substitute their horse-drawn vehicles with motorized units more in keeping with modern progress. The thought is that thereby these owners may endeavour to recoup losses occasioned horse-drawn carromatas through competition with electric line, bus, and taxicab fares. According to the applicants, carromatas are bound gradually to disappear from the streets of Manila.
In finding that public convenience would be advanced by permission to the autocalesas to operate in the City Manila and its suburbs, the Public Service Commission stressed the betterment of moral and sanitary conditions. However, an examination of the record discloses that other factors were emphasized in the course of the reception of the testimony and it is proper to take these factors into consideration. The chief of police of the City of Manila testified that the substitution of carromatas by motorized units would relieve traffic congestion to a great extent. The superintendent of the automobile division of the Bureau of Public Works testified that a larger revenue would be received from autocalesas than from carromatas. There was also evidence given to the effect that the masses of the people prefer motor vehicles to carromatas when they can afford to use them. The principal advocate of the autocalesas stated that his purpose was to serve not the middle class or the better class but the poor class. The conclusion, therefore, must be that there was evidence before the commission supporting in some degree at least its orders.
The oppositions of the Manila Electric Company and of the owners of buses and taxicabs center on the proposition that the public of Manila and its environs are adequately served by existing operators and that the operation of autocalesas would constitute ruinous competition against existing operators. It was argued that the co
