Facts:

In the case of Ablaza Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Feliciano Ocampo, Gabriel Prieto, Quintin Paredes, Jr., and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. (G.R. No. L-3563, March 29, 1951), the petitioner, Ablaza Transportation Co., Inc., contested an order issued by the Public Service Commission that granted a provisional permit to Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. to operate "direct trips" from Hagonoy to Manila via Malolos. The case arose in the context of competition between transportation companies providing services between Manila and northern destinations. Ablaza Transportation operated between Manila, Malolos, and Hagonoy, while Pampanga Bus served a more extensive line connecting Manila to various points in the north, including a minor line from Hagonoy to San Rafael. Although Pampanga Bus previously had the authority to link these lines for transport, they did not possess an express permit to conduct direct journeys. Following complaints regarding passenger inconveniences due to transfers a

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Ablaza Transportation Co., Inc. and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. are competing operators of transistor public utility (TPU) service between Manila and points north.
• Ablaza Transportation is authorized to operate a line between Manila, Malolos, and Hagonoy, whereas Pampanga Bus operates a main line from Manila to points north extending to Pampanga, in addition to a minor line between Hagonoy and San Rafael in Bulacan that intersects the main line at Malolos.

Development of the Dispute

• Pampanga Bus attempted to provide “direct trips” between Hagonoy and Manila without requiring a transfer at Malolos by shifting buses between its two authorized lines.
• This method was challenged when Luis G. Ablaza filed a complaint, prompting the Public Service Commission (PSC) to intervene.

PSC’s Initial Ruling and Subsequent Developments

• The PSC ruled that Pampanga Bus could not operate a direct TPU service between Hagonoy and Manila via Malolos. It instead allowed the transfer of buses between the lines only under conditions of extraordinary heavy traffic.
• This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. vs. Ablaza (83 Phil. 905), upholding the prohibition against direct trips except in exceptional cases.

Filing of the Application and Granting of the Provisional Permit

• Following the affirmed decision, Pampanga Bus applied for a certificate of public convenience to legalize its direct service between Hagonoy and Manila via Malolos.
• The application was opposed by Ablaza Transportation, and while the evidence was being gathered for a hearing, Pampanga Bus filed an ex parte motion citing immediate public necessity.
• The motion, which highlighted the inconvenience to passengers due to transfers at Malolos, was granted on a provisional basis by the PSC.
• The provisional permit allowed Pampanga Bus to operate direct trips on the specified route with conditions that it adhere to the terms of its previous permit and modify its service as prescribed.

Contentions in the Petition

• Ablaza Transportation argued that by granting a provisional permit, the PSC deprived it of its day in court and exceeded its jurisdiction, asserting that such provisional permits are unauthorized pending a final decision on the application.
• It was further contended that the service modification would effectively grant Pampanga Bus a monopoly over the direct service from Hagonoy to Manila via Malolos, thus adversely affecting Ablaza’s established operation.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Authority

• Whether the Public Service Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a provisional permit pending the final determination of Pampanga Bus’s application for a certificate of public convenience.
• Whether the issuance of a provisional permit in such circumstances is consistent with established legal principles and prior jurisprudence.

Impact on Competing Operator

• Whether the issuance of the provisional permit unjustly prejudices the interests of Ablaza Transportation by altering the competitive balance between the operators.
• Whether the mode of service authorized (i.e., the so-called “direct trips”) constitutes a new service threatening the established operations of Ablaza, or merely a readjustment of pre-war authorized service.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)