G.R. No. L-42974, L-42975, L-42976; May 7, 1935
Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Francisco Cruz, Vicente Mendoza, Roman Joseph

FACTS

Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. filed complaints before the Public Service Commission against respondents, who were operators of PU (public utility) automobiles, for allegedly picking up and dropping off passengers in places not authorized by their certificates of public convenience. The respondents moved to dismiss the complaints, pointing out that the same acts were the subject of a pending contempt proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 5680), where Pasay Transportation sought to punish them for violating an injunction order. The Public Service Commission dismissed the complaints, reasoning that it would be unjust to prosecute the respondents twice for the same infractions and to avoid potential conflict with the court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in dismissing the complaints on the ground of avoiding double prosecution for the same infractions.

RULING

No, the Public Service Commission did not err. The Supreme Court held that while both the Court of First Instance (in the contempt case) and the Public Service Commission (in the suspension/revocation proceeding) had concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter involving the same facts and parties, the filing of the complaint before the Commission was premature. The petitioner should have awaited the decision of the Court of First Instance in the contempt case to avoid any possibility of conflicting decisions. Under the circumstances, the Commission’s dismissal of the cases was not erroneous. The petition for review was denied without prejudice and without costs.

AI Generated by Armztrong.