G.R. No. 8095 - Fisher vs. Yangco Steamship Co.

Plaintiff F. C. Fisher is a stockholder in the Yangco Steamship Company, which owns several steam vessels licensed for coastwise trade in the Philippine Islands.
The company’s directors and shareholders adopted a resolution expressly excluding "dynamite, powder or other explosives" from the merchandise the company would carry, prohibiting officers and agents from accepting or carrying such explosives.
The Acting Collector of Customs demanded the company accept explosives for carriage, threatening to suspend clearances for vessels unless the company complied.
Plaintiff fears that refusal to comply will result in criminal prosecutions under penal provisions of Act No. 98 by the Attorney-General and the prosecuting attorney of Manila.
Plaintiff asserts that if the company is legally required to carry explosives notwithstanding its resolution, Act No. 98 is unconstitutional and void.
Plaintiff seeks a writ of prohibition restraining:

The company and its agents from accepting or carrying explosives.
The officials from compelling or charging the company for refusing to carry explosives.

Respondents demurred to the complaint, asserting insufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.
Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege:

That all or any vessels are unsuitable for transporting explosives.
That shippers failed to comply with reasonable safety regulations for explosives.
Any unreasonable prejudice or discrimination beyond refusal based on company policy.

The complaint challenges the interpretation and constitutionality of Act No. 98 insofar as it allegedly compels carrying explosives.

Sections 2-4 prohibit common carriers from giving any unreasonable or unnecessary preference or discrimination in carriage.
Carriers must accept passengers or property offered for carriage without discrimination and in the order offered, except under lawful conditions.
Willful violation may be punished by fines and/or imprisonment.

The vessels carry passengers as well as freight.
Explosives such as dynamite and powder are dangerous commodities, requiring special handling that the company’s vessels lack.
There is inherent risk in transporting such explosives despite precautionary measures.
The cost of installing special means for safe carriage on the vessels is prohibitive and unreasonable.

Whether a common carrier licensed for coastwise trade may lawfully refuse to accept dynamite, powder, or other explosives for carriage under its company policy without violating Act No. 98.
Whether Act No. 98’s provisions requiring carriers to accept all passengers and property offered for carriage are unconstitutional or invalid when applied to carriers refusing explosives.
Whether the application of penal sanctions for refusal to carry explosives unlawfully deprives the company of liberty or property without due process or amounts to confiscation.
Whether the plaintiff, as a stockholder, has legal capacity or standing to maintain the suit.
Whether the court may exercise original jurisdiction in prohibition proceedings over the issues raised, including questions involving disputed facts.