GR 30323; (August, 1973) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30323 August 31, 1973
THE CITY OF TAGBILARAN AND ITS CITY BOARD, oppositors-petitioners, vs. SEVERIANO G. LIM, applicant-respondent.
FACTS
The Public Service Commission (PSC) granted the application of Severiano G. Lim for a certificate of public convenience to operate fifty motorized tricycles for passenger transport within Tagbilaran City. The City of Tagbilaran opposed the application before the PSC, asserting that the power to grant such authority was vested in its City Board under its charter, not in the PSC. The PSC rejected this argument, finding no charter provision conferring such power on the city. The PSC, after hearing, determined that public convenience would be promoted by the grant, citing the city’s growth, the need for transportation for students and commuters, and Lim’s financial capability as a naturalized Filipino citizen.
The City of Tagbilaran appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, reiterating its primary claim of exclusive jurisdiction. It also challenged the PSC’s factual finding on public need, arguing the grant would aggravate traffic congestion and deplete city revenues from permits. The PSC’s decision noted the city’s opposition was unsubstantiated, as no tricycles were previously authorized by the PSC to operate as a public service in the city, and the city retained regulatory power to impose license fees.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission, rather than the City of Tagbilaran, had jurisdiction to grant a certificate of public convenience for the operation of a motorized tricycle service within the city.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s decision, ruling it had exclusive jurisdiction. The Court held that a municipal corporation, like Tagbilaran City, possesses only such powers as are expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied therefrom. The City failed to identify any specific provision in its charter empowering it to issue certificates of public convenience for public utilities. Absent such a statutory grant, the authority remained vested in the PSC under Commonwealth Act No. 146 , as amended (The Public Service Act).
The Court dismissed the city’s ancillary factual arguments. The PSC’s determination of public need and the applicant’s financial capability are factual findings conclusive upon the Supreme Court in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, which was not present. The city’s concerns over traffic control and revenue were addressed by the PSC’s observation that the city retained its inherent police power to reasonably regulate the operation and impose license fees on the tricycles, notwithstanding the PSC-issued certificate. The certificate grants the franchise to operate as a public service, but local governments retain concurrent regulatory authority over aspects like traffic flow and local licensing.