G.R. No. 17151 ; April 6, 1922
A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. VICENTE GOLINGCO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiff, A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., a corporation engaged in the public utility business of transporting passengers and freight by trucks in Albay since 1912, filed an amended complaint against the defendant, Vicente Golingco, who also owned a public utility trucking business. The complaint alleged that while the defendant’s business was in operation prior to the enactment of Act No. 2694 (the Public Utility Law) on March 9, 1917, he had abandoned the specific route from Legaspi, Albay to Naga, Ambos Camarines around the beginning of 1916. The plaintiff claimed that on January 21, 1919, the defendant resumed operations on this route by transferring three trucks to it and later operating more trucks, without first obtaining the required certificate of public necessity from the Public Utility Commission as mandated by Act No. 2694 . The plaintiff sought damages and a permanent injunction to prohibit the defendant from operating on that route without the required certificate. The defendant demurred, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Court of First Instance of Albay sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the amended complaint states a cause of action against the defendant for operating a public utility on a specific route without the certificate of public necessity required by Act No. 2694 .

RULING

Yes, the amended complaint states a cause of action. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the complaint. The Court held that: (1) Courts retain at least concurrent jurisdiction with the Public Utility Commissioner over special proceedings like injunctions; (2) A public utility may maintain an action against another utility that operates without authorization in competition with it; and (3) Under Act No. 2694 , a public utility must first obtain a certificate of public necessity from the Public Utility Commissioner before operating, unless it was already operating at the time the law took effect. The complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendant was not operating on the specific route in question when Act No. 2694 took effect (having abandoned it earlier) and later resumed operations without the required certificate. Therefore, the complaint stated a valid cause of action for injunction and damages. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.