Scribd
Upload
274 views1 page

Batangas Transportation Co. Vs Orlanes 52 Phil 455

The Batangas Transportation Company appealed a decision of the Public Service Commission that granted Cayetano Orlanes a certificate of public convenience to operate an autobus line between Taal and Bantilan. Batangas Transportation Company had been operating regular bus service between Taal and Rosario since 1918 and the service was extended to San Juan de Bolbok in 1920 under a certificate of public convenience. The Supreme Court held that since Batangas Transportation Company had been operating adequate and satisfactory service for 5 years prior to Orlanes seeking to operate, granting Orlanes a certificate would not promote public convenience and interests and would subject the existing operator to ruinous competition. The decision of the Public Service Commission granting the

Uploaded by

Wren
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
274 views1 page

Batangas Transportation Co. Vs Orlanes 52 Phil 455

The Batangas Transportation Company appealed a decision of the Public Service Commission that granted Cayetano Orlanes a certificate of public convenience to operate an autobus line between Taal and Bantilan. Batangas Transportation Company had been operating regular bus service between Taal and Rosario since 1918 and the service was extended to San Juan de Bolbok in 1920 under a certificate of public convenience. The Supreme Court held that since Batangas Transportation Company had been operating adequate and satisfactory service for 5 years prior to Orlanes seeking to operate, granting Orlanes a certificate would not promote public convenience and interests and would subject the existing operator to ruinous competition. The decision of the Public Service Commission granting the

Uploaded by

Wren
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Batangas Transportation Co.

vs Orlanes 52 Phil 455

G.R. No. L-28865 December 19, 1928 BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., petitioner-appellant,
vs. CAYETANO ORLANES, respondent-appellee.

FACTS: Orlanes sought to have a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate an autobus line
with a fixed schedule between Taal and Bantilan and intermediate points. He then alleges that
by reason of increase of traffic, the public convenience also requires that he be permitted to
accept passengers and cargoes at points between Taal and Bantilan.

Batangas Transportation Company appeared and filed an application for a permit asking for
additional hours for its line, alleging that it is operating a regular service of auto trucks in the
principal municipalities of Batangas and Tayabas, that since 1918 it has been operating a regular
service between Taal and Rosario, and in 1920, its service was extended to San Juan de Bolbok,
with a certificate of public convenience.

the Public Service Commission granted the petition of Orlanes

ISSUE: Whether or not a certificate of public convenience should be issued to a second operator
to operate a public utility in a field where, and in competition with, a first operator who is
already operating, adequate and satisfactory service

HELD: No. The evidence is conclusive that the Batangas Transportation Company operated its
line 5 years before Orlanes ever turned a wheel, yet the legal effect of the decision of the Public
Service Commission is to give an irregular operator, who was the last in the field, a preferential
right over a regular operator, who was the first in the field. That is not the law, and there is no
legal principle upon which it can be sustained.

So long as the first licensee keeps and performs the terms and conditions of its license and
complies with the reasonable rules and regulations of the Commission and meets the
reasonable demands of the public, it should have more or less of a vested and preferential right
over a person who seeks to acquire another and a later license over the same route. Otherwise,
the first license would not have protection on his investment, and would be subject to ruinous
competition and thus defeat the very purpose and intent for which the Public Service
Commission was created.

The rule has been laid down, without dissent in numerous decisions, that where an operator is
rendering good, sufficient and adequate service to the public, that the convenience does not
require and the public interests will not be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by giving
another operator a certificate of public convenience to operate a competing line over the same
route.

The Government having taken over the control and supervision of all public utilities, so long as
an operator under a prior license complies with the terms and conditions of his license and
reasonable rules and regulation for its operation and meets the reasonable demands of the
public, it is the duty of the Commission to protect rather than to destroy his investment by the
granting of a subsequent license to another for the same thing over the same route of travel.
The granting of such a license does not serve its convenience or promote the interests of the
public.

The decision of the Public Service Commission, granting to Orlanes the license in question, is
revoked and set aside, and the case is remanded to the Commission for such other and further
proceedings as are not inconsistent with this opinion.

You might also like