Title
A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Golingco
Case
G.R. No. L-17151
Decision Date
Apr 6, 1922
Plaintiff, a public utility operator, sued defendant for illegally competing on its routes without a certificate of public necessity, causing damages. Supreme Court ruled the complaint valid, reversing dismissal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17151)

Facts:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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:

  1. Whether the amended complaint filed by the plaintiff states a valid cause of action against the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant’s operation of trucks on new routes without a certificate of public necessity violates Act No. 2694.
  3. 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)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.