G.R. No. L-4937 December 17, 1952
MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner, vs. BASILISA PULIDO PELLOS and OTHERS, respondents.

FACTS

The Manila Railroad Company (MRR) filed a petition for certiorari seeking the revocation of an order dated June 20, 1951, issued by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in Case No. 41619. Previously, Basilisa Pulido Pellos had applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate five auto-trucks on specific routes. While her application was pending, the PSC granted her provisional certificates. On May 16, 1951, the PSC approved her application and granted her a certificate for four auto-trucks on the Indang-Manila via Naic line for 25 years. On the same day, Pellos sold her rights and equipment under this certificate to Eliseo Saulog for P2,500, a sale provisionally approved by the PSC on May 19, 1951, subject to any future motions or petitions for review. On May 30, 1951, MRR filed a motion with the PSC to reopen the case, alleging that Pellos obtained the certificate through false representations and seeking revocation of the PSC’s orders approving the certificate and its sale. MRR based its motion on the PSC’s power under the Public Service Act to amend or revoke a certificate if the facts supporting its issuance were misrepresented. The PSC denied MRR’s motion on June 20, 1951, ruling that it had no jurisdiction over the Manila Railroad Company concerning its bus service on any given line.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction over the Manila Railroad Company as a juridical entity to hear and resolve its motion to reopen a case and revoke a certificate of public convenience granted to another operator, based on allegations of misrepresentation.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court revoked the PSC’s order of June 20, 1951 and directed the Commission to resolve MRR’s motion on its merits. The Court clarified that the phrase “the Commission has no jurisdiction over the Manila Railroad Company” in prior decisions and in Act No. 3376 refers to the PSC’s lack of jurisdiction to suppress or modify the auto-truck lines established by MRR under its legislative franchise. It does not mean that the PSC lacks jurisdiction over MRR as a juridical person. The PSC retains jurisdiction over MRR concerning matters such as tariff rates. In this case, MRR is not seeking to alter its own lines but is challenging the certificate granted to another operator, Basilisa Pulido Pellos, which is within the PSC’s jurisdiction. Any transportation line not operated by MRR is subject to PSC jurisdiction and requires a certificate of public convenience. MRR, like any other operator, has the right to appear before the PSC to protect its interests against competition from other companies, especially when a certificate is allegedly obtained by fraud. To deny MRR this right would be discriminatory and place it at a disadvantage compared to other operators. MRR, as a juridical entity, has the right to sue and be sued before courts and enjoys the same right before the Public Service Commission.