G.R. No. L-3563 March 29, 1951
ABLAZA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. FELICIANO OCAMPO, GABRIEL PRIETO, and QUINTIN PAREDES, Jr., as Public Service Commissioners, PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Ablaza Transportation Co., Inc., and the respondent, Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., are competing operators of TPU service. Ablaza is authorized to operate a line between Manila and Hagonoy via Malolos. Pampanga Bus is authorized to operate a main line from Manila to points in Pampanga and a minor line between Hagonoy and San Rafael, which crosses its main line at Malolos. By linking these two lines, Pampanga Bus could transport passengers between Hagonoy and Manila, but passengers had to transfer buses at Malolos, as Pampanga Bus lacked express authority for direct trips. Pampanga Bus attempted to operate direct trips without transfers by adjusting headways and shifting buses, but this was stopped following a complaint by Luis G. Ablaza and a ruling by the Public Service Commission, later affirmed by the Supreme Court, prohibiting such direct service. Subsequently, Pampanga Bus applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate direct trips between Hagonoy and Manila via Malolos. Ablaza Transportation opposed the application. After the applicant presented its evidence and a continuance was granted, Pampanga Bus filed an ex parte motion alleging immediate public necessity due to passenger inconvenience from transfers and praying for a provisional permit pending the hearing’s continuation. The Public Service Commission granted the provisional permit ex parte. Ablaza Transportation then filed this petition for certiorari, alleging deprivation of its day in court and that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission exceeded its jurisdiction or deprived the petitioner of its day in court by granting a provisional permit to Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., to operate direct trips between Hagonoy and Manila via Malolos, pending the final determination of the application for a permanent certificate.

RULING

The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that the Public Service Commission did not exceed its jurisdiction in granting the provisional permit. The Court modified its earlier ruling in Barredo vs. Public Service Commission, citing Javellana vs. La Paz Plant, which held that the Commission may issue a provisional permit to meet an urgent public need when the case cannot be decided immediately. In this case, there was a clear public need to eliminate the inconvenience of transferring passengers at Malolos. The decision on the permanent application was remote, partly due to alleged systematic delays by the oppositor. The provisional permit was not a new service but a readjustment of the applicant’s pre-war authorized service to avoid passenger transfers and did not involve an increase in trips or extension of service. Thus, it merely readjusted service for public welfare without posing a new threat beyond ordinary healthful competition to the petitioner’s operations.