G.R. No. 11203; September 29, 1915
TEODORO R. YANGCO, petitioner, vs. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS, respondent.

FACTS:
The Board of Public Utility Commissioners, upon complaint, ordered petitioner Teodoro R. Yangco to establish, publish, maintain, and file a fixed schedule of arrivals and departures for his steamship, the Luis R. Yangco, plying between Manila, Boac, Romblon, Capiz, and New Washington. The order was to take effect on October 1, 1915. Yangco petitioned the Supreme Court for a review of this order under Act No. 2307 and moved for its suspension pending the resolution of the case on the merits.

ISSUE:
Whether the order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners should be suspended pending judicial review.

RULING:
YES, the order is suspended. The Court, in a resolution, ordered the suspension of the Board’s order until further notice, setting a briefing schedule and a future hearing on the merits.

Separate Opinions:
Justice Moreland (Concurring): He concurred to distinguish this case from Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company vs. Board of Public Utility Commissioners (30 Phil. 387), where a similar suspension was denied. He outlined four grounds for suspension applicable here: (1) the order’s terms are too indefinite to be complied with; (2) the terms are so general that compliance may still lead to another proceeding; (3) the petitioner will likely prevail on the merits; and (4) compliance could prejudice public interest. He reasoned that the order, by merely requiring a “fixed schedule,” could technically be complied with by publishing a schedule of only one trip per year, which would be against public interest and likely unacceptable to the Board, thus exposing Yangco to further proceedings.
Justice Carson (Dissenting): He dissented, arguing that an order should not be suspended absent a showing of: (1) insurmountable difficulty in compliance, or (2) grave and irreparable damage to the petitioner that outweighs the public inconvenience from suspension. He found the order clear and reasonable, merely requiring what other common carriers do. He cited the Court’s earlier ruling in the Manila Electric case, which held that suspension is a discretionary power that should not be exercised without a strong showing of irreparable injury to the petitioner greater than the public’s injury from maintaining the order. He believed no such showing was made here.