G.R. No. L-15122; March 10, 1920
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN PIACO, VENTURA ESTUYA, PEDRO HOMERES, MAXIMINO GALSA and EMILIO LEOPANDO, defendants. TAN PIACO, appellant.

FACTS:
The appellant, Tan Piaco, was charged with violating the Public Utility Law ( Act No. 2307 , as amended) for operating a public utility without permission from the Public Utility Commissioner. He had rented two automobile trucks and used them on the highways of Leyte to carry passengers and freight. However, the evidence showed that he carried passengers and freight only under special contracts in each case and did not hold himself out to serve all persons or freight indiscriminately. The trial court acquitted the other defendants but convicted Tan Piaco, sentencing him to pay a fine. Tan Piaco appealed the conviction.

ISSUE:
Whether Tan Piaco, under the proven facts, was operating a “public utility” subject to the jurisdiction and regulation of the Public Utility Commission.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted Tan Piaco. The Court held that to be considered a “public utility” under the law, the business must be operated for “public use.” “Public use” means use by the indefinite public, not confined to privileged individuals, and open to all who may apply. The essential criterion is whether the public enjoys the service by right or merely by permission. Here, Tan Piaco’s operation was based on special, individual agreements; he did not offer his services to the general public indiscriminately and reserved the right to refuse service. Therefore, his business was a private enterprise, not a public utility for public use, and was not subject to the Public Utility Commission’s jurisdiction. The complaint was dismissed, and Tan Piaco was absolved from all liability.