Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21842)
Facts:
Jaime R. Blanco v. Nelia Manalo, et al., G.R. No. L-21842. May 29, 1971, the Supreme Court En Banc, Dizon, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Jaime R. Blanco sought review of a decision by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in PSC Case No. 121628 that authorized the issuance of 330 additional taxicab units to specified operators in the City of Manila and its suburbs and set conditions for registration and operation. The PSC’s dispositive listed 59 named grants totaling 330 units and stated that, with the grant, the total authorized taxicab units in Manila and suburbs would be 2,815; it denied many other applications for lack of merit or failure to prosecute and attached registration and inspection conditions.
The record shows that 357 separate applications were filed with the PSC: 59 by existing taxicab operators seeking additional units and 298 by non-operators seeking authority to operate taxicabs. Fifty-seven applications were dismissed for failure to appear; a few others were withdrawn by applicants. The City of Manila opposed all applications; the incumbent operators who filed for additional units opposed the non-operator applicants, asserting priority to any increase. After notice by publication and joint hearings agreed to by the parties, the PSC found public necessity and financial capacity in the aggregate but deemed the total requested (14,995 units) unreasonable and limited the grant to 330 units, to be distributed among the existing operators.
In allocating the 330 units, the PSC explained its reasons: it relied on Supreme Court precedents (citing Bohol Land Transportation Co. v. Jureidini, Yangco v. Esteban, and En carnacion Elchico vda. de Fernando v. Gallardo) for the principle that existing carriers entitled to an opportunity to improve service and that new entrants should not be allowed to compete where existing service suffices. The PSC also referenced practical supervisory limits—only 92 transportation inspectors nationwide—as justification for maintaining the present number of operators. The PSC stated a policy that a taxicab operator should have at least five units and thus refused to award units to new applicants on that basis.
Petitioner filed a petition for review in this Court contesting the PSC allocation and raising seven issues, later argued before the Supreme Court. The petition alleged (inter alia) that many existing operator-applicants had sold or assigned their franchises (thus waiving or losing preference), that they had violated PSC rules, that the PSC improperly relied on the notion of fair and reasonable return, that due process was violated by awards to unlisted operators, and that the PSC improperly refused to disturb its decision because reconsideration commissioners had not personally heard the original...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are existing taxicab operator-applicants estopped, or have they waived or lost their right to preference in the allocation of the 330 additional taxicab units by reason of selling or assigning their franchises or by violating PSC rules and regulations?
- Did the PSC err in relying on the factor of a fair and reasonable return to investment (and related considerations such as maintenance of operator numbers for supervision) in granting preference to existing operators over new applicants?
- Did the PSC violate petitioner’s right to due process by granting 48 of the 330 additional taxicab units to nine unlisted operators?
- Did the PSC err in refusing to disturb its decision on the ground that the commissioners who acted on reconsideration did not hear the recorded evidence originally presented?
- Did the PSC err in refusing to disturb its decision because grantees had already invested in reliance on the awards and because decisions take immediate effect notwithstanding motions for reconsideration or a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)