GR 37655; (February, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37655 ; February 9, 1933
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner-appellant, vs. PASAY TRANSPORTATION, CO., INC., respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The Pasay Transportation Co. (respondent) was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public Service Commission in 1927 to operate auto-truck services on certain street extensions in Pasay, including Zamora, Apelo Cruz, and S. Vitan streets. In January 1928, it obtained permission to temporarily suspend operation on Dominga and Apelo Cruz streets pending repairs. In March 1932, Manila Electric Company (Meralco, petitioner) filed a petition with the Commission seeking revocation and cancellation of the respondent’s certificate for those extensions, alleging complete abandonment for over four years. Meralco argued it had since obtained a certificate and began operating on adjacent routes, making it unfair to allow competition from a previously abandoned line. The respondent opposed, claiming the suspension was temporary and that it had pending applications for route rearrangement. The Commission denied Meralco’s petition without taking evidence, ruling the suspension was temporary and authorized. Meralco’s motion for reconsideration was also denied, again without presenting evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission erred in denying Meralco’s petition for revocation of the respondent’s certificate for the specified street extensions without requiring evidence and based on a finding of temporary suspension only.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s order. The Court noted that Meralco failed to present any evidence in support of its petition for revocation before the Commission. Without an agreed statement of facts and with conflicting contentions between the parties, the Commission’s decision could not be overturned. However, the Court clarified that the Commission should ensure strict compliance with certificates and that authorized suspensions should be for a definite period, after which the operator must show cause for non-operation. The public convenience must remain the paramount consideration. Since Meralco did not substantiate its claim of abandonment with evidence, the denial of its petition was proper.
AI Generated by Armztrong.