GR 45455; (July, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 45455 and 45456; July 21, 1938
MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, petitioner-appellant, vs. M. R. MATEO, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
Two consolidated cases arose from applications before the Public Service Commission. M.R. Mateo applied to extend his autotruck line from Divisoria Market to Arroceros Street in Manila to serve passengers from Navotas and Malabon going to government offices, without picking up passengers along the extension. Manila Electric Company (Meralco) opposed this and applied to extend its own line within Malabon from San Bartolome Church to Concepcion Street. Both parties opposed each other’s applications, alleging unfair competition and lack of necessity. The Commission granted Mateo’s application with the condition that he not pick up passengers along the extension, and denied Meralco’s application, finding Mateo’s existing service in the area adequate. Meralco appealed.
ISSUE
1. Did the Public Service Commission err in granting Mateo’s application in terms allegedly different from what he prayed for?
2. Did the Commission err in denying Meralco’s application despite finding a need for direct service from Malabon/Navotas to points in Manila beyond Divisoria?
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision.
1. The Commission did not grant more than what Mateo applied for. It granted the extension precisely as prayed—from Divisoria to Arroceros Street for the exclusive purpose of carrying passengers from Navotas and Malabon, with the explicit condition against picking up passengers along the extension route.
2. The Commission correctly denied Meralco’s application. The established rule is that an existing operator who complies with the terms of its certificate should be protected from unnecessary competition. The need for a direct service to Manila does not justify allowing Meralco to invade the territory already adequately served by Mateo. If Mateo’s service were inadequate, the remedy is for the Commission to require him to improve it, not to authorize a competing line. The Commission’s findings were supported by evidence, and the Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission.
AI Generated by Armztrong.