Title
Antonio Heras and Vicente Heras vs. Pedro de Guia
Case
G.R. No. L-7581
Decision Date
Oct 24, 1955
Public Service Commission approved Pedro de Guia's route change, finding no wasteful competition and addressing public need for direct service. Oppositors' claims dismissed.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7581)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Petitioners: Antonio Heras and Vicente Heras, operators of public transportation services in the region.
    • Respondent: Pedro de Guia, an authorized TPU (Temporary Permit Unit) operator between San Juan and Manila.
  2. Subject Matter:

    • Pedro de Guia applied to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a change in his route and termini. His current route runs from the intersection of N. Domingo and Blumentritt Streets via Mandaluyong to Quiapo. He proposed a new route starting from the corner of Lt. Artiaga and N. Domingo (1 km from his current starting point) to Divisoria, using the same five units he currently operates.
  3. Opposition:

    • Antonio Heras and Vicente Heras opposed the application, arguing that the proposed service was unnecessary and would lead to wasteful or ruinous competition. They were the only operators who actively opposed the application out of the 20+ notified operators.
  4. Evidence Presented:

    • De Guia's Evidence:
      • No direct service exists between Lt. Artiaga and Divisoria.
      • The volume of traffic justifies the change.
      • Abandoning his current route would not prejudice the public, as 19 other units would still operate on the old route.
    • Heras' Evidence:
      • The current service is sufficient.
      • Approval of the application would cause wasteful competition.
    • PSC Findings:
      • No authorized direct service exists between Lt. Artiaga and Divisoria.
      • Illegal operations are prevalent along N. Domingo Street, indicating a need for authorized service.
      • The proposed service would not cause wasteful competition, as the routes of the oppositors are distinct from de Guia's proposed route.
  5. PSC Decision:

    • The PSC granted de Guia’s application, approving the change in route and termini. The oppositors (Heras) appealed the decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Public Convenience and Necessity:

    • The PSC has the authority to grant or deny applications for changes in routes based on public convenience and necessity. The evidence showed that the proposed service would fill a gap in transportation services, as there was no authorized direct service between Lt. Artiaga and Divisoria.
  2. Abandonment of Old Route:

    • An operator may apply for a change in route without first securing the cancellation of the original certificate of public convenience. The PSC’s approval of the new route effectively cancels the authority for the old route.
  3. Competition and Public Interest:

    • The PSC’s decision must balance competition and public interest. In this case, the proposed service would not cause wasteful competition, as the routes of the oppositors were distinct and did not overlap significantly with de Guia’s proposed route. The prevalence of illegal operations along N. Domingo Street further justified the need for authorized service.


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.