Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17151)
Facts:
The case involves A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. as the plaintiff and Vicente Golingco as the defendant. The events leading to the case began when the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of Albay on February 2, 1920. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff, a corporation duly organized under Philippine law, had been operating a public utility business for the transportation of passengers and freight since 1912, with a capital investment of P150,000 and a fleet of 26 trucks. The defendant, Vicente Golingco, was also engaged in a similar public utility business, operating 12 trucks for transportation between specific municipalities in Albay.
The plaintiff claimed that Golingco had illegally competed with its business by transferring three of his trucks to operate on routes that overlapped with the plaintiff's established service. The complaint detailed that Golingco had resumed operations with more than three trucks without obtainin...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17151)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiff: A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., a corporation engaged in the public utility business of transporting passengers and freight in Albay Province since 1912.
- Defendant: Vicente Golingco, owner of a public utility business operating trucks for passenger and freight transportation in Albay Province.
Business Operations:
- The plaintiff has been operating its transportation business since 1912, investing P150,000 and owning 26 White trucks, fully complying with Act No. 2307 and regulations of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners.
- The defendant has been operating a public utility business with 12 White 1 1/2-ton trucks, primarily between Legaspi and Tiui in Albay Province.
Dispute:
- On January 21, 1919, the defendant transferred three of his trucks to operate on new routes (Legaspi-Guinobatan, Legaspi-Ligao, and Legaspi-Polangui) within Albay Province, competing with the plaintiff’s established routes.
- The defendant resumed operating more than three trucks on these routes without obtaining a certificate of public necessity from the Public Utility Commission, as required by Act No. 2694.
Legal Claims:
- The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s operations are illegal and have caused damages of at least P30 per day per truck since January 21, 1919.
- The plaintiff seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction to stop the defendant’s operations and claims damages for the losses incurred.
Procedural History:
- The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer, dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed the decision.
Issue:
- Whether the amended complaint filed by the plaintiff states a valid cause of action against the defendant.
- Whether the defendant’s operation of trucks on new routes without a certificate of public necessity violates Act No. 2694.
- Whether the plaintiff, as a public utility, has the right to maintain an action against another public utility for illegal competition.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)