GR 42522; (February, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 42522 ; February 25, 1935
RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, petitioner-appellant, vs. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The Raymundo Transportation Company (appellant) was granted a certificate of public convenience in 1928 to operate between Manila and Santa Cruz, Laguna, with a specific restriction: its buses passing through the Mabitac-Santa Cruz line could not pick up passengers or freight between points served by Cayetano Orlanes and the Batangas Transportation Co. (predecessors of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, appellee) unless they passed one hour before or half an hour after the latter’s buses. In a 1928 case (No. 16474), the Public Service Commission interpreted this certificate, declaring that the appellant “has no right whatever to pick up passengers and freight between Santa Cruz and Mabitac and vice-versa.” The appellant did not appeal this 1928 decision. In 1934, the appellee complained that the appellant was picking up local traffic on the Mabitac-Santa Cruz line. The Commission, in its July 23, 1934 decision, upheld its 1928 interpretation and prohibited the appellant from such local operation, a ruling clarified in September 1934 to allow the appellant only to pick up or drop off passengers/freight destined for or originating from points beyond Mabitac, but not for local transport between Mabitac and Santa Cruz.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission correctly upheld its 1928 decision (in Case No. 16474) which interpreted the appellant’s certificate as prohibiting it from engaging in local passenger and freight service between Santa Cruz and Mabitac.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The Court held that the 1928 ruling was not mere obiter dictum but a direct resolution of the same substantial issue—the extent of the appellant’s operating rights under its certificate. Since the appellant did not appeal the 1928 decision, it became final and binding. The appellant was therefore bound by that interpretation and could not later challenge its validity. The Commission’s 1934 decision, which merely reiterated and clarified the 1928 prohibition against local operations on the contested line, was correct. The petition for review was dismissed.
AI Generated by Armztrong.