G.R. No. 19462 ; January 16, 1923
YNCHAUSTI STEAMSHIP COMPANY, petitioner, vs. THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONER and THE BOARD OF APPEAL, respondents.

FACTS

The Ynchausti Steamship Company operated the steamship Venus. Initially authorized to sail on the Manila-Vigan-Currimao-Aparri route, it obtained permission from the Public Utility Commissioner to transfer the Venus to the Manila-Iloilo route, subject to a specific schedule: depart Manila on Tuesdays and depart Iloilo on Fridays. Later, the company petitioned to change its schedule to depart Manila on Wednesdays and Iloilo on Saturdays, citing operational efficiency. The Commissioner granted a temporary permit for the new schedule pending a hearing. After extensive hearings with protests from competitors, the Commissioner ultimately denied the permanent change, revoked the temporary permit, and ordered a return to the original schedule. The Board of Appeal affirmed this decision. Ynchausti appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the Commissioner lacked the power to fix sailing schedules, that a competitor (Compañia Maritima) had not acquired a prior right to the Wednesday/Saturday schedule, and that the denial was against public convenience.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Utility Commissioner is empowered by law to control and fix the sailing schedules of inter-island ships.
2. Whether the evidence supported the Commissioner’s findings that Compañia Maritima had a prior right to the disputed sailing days and that the change was against public convenience.

RULING

1. *YES. The Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner’s authority. Section 19 of Act No. 2307 , as amended by Act No. 2694 , expressly prohibits any public utility from making a permanent change in its sailing schedules without the Commission’s prior approval. This provision implies the legislative power to fix such schedules as a condition for operating a public utility. The legislature has the inherent power to regulate public utilities devoted to a public use, and it validly delegated this administrative power to the Commissioner. The law is constitutional.
2. YES.* The Court found that assignments of error regarding the prior right of a competitor and public convenience presented questions of fact. There was a material conflict in the evidence presented during the extended hearings. The Commissioner’s factual findings against the petitioner were reasonably supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court, in its limited review jurisdiction under the Public Utility Law, will not disturb such factual findings when supported by evidence.
The writ was denied, and the ruling of the Public Utility Commissioner was sustained. No costs were awarded.