Case Digest (G.R. No. 45134)
Facts:
On December 18, 1929, Genanichi Ishi, a Japanese subject, was granted by the Public Service Commission a certificate of public convenience (Case No. 21268) to operate a Ford automobile for the transportation of passengers in the Province of Davao, subject to conditions he accepted, including that he would not alter the manner of operating the cars, increase or decrease their number, substitute them with others, change the form of the carriage, or send them on a trip outside the zone of operation without authorization from the Commission previously obtained. The certificate was to take effect on the date it was issued and was to continue until further order. On October 23, 1935, after the adoption of the Constitution on November 15, 1935, Ishi filed an application seeking authority to increase his present equipment by adding another Ford automobile, alleging that the number of automobiles registered under the “PU” denomination in Davao was insufficient to meet transportation dema...Case Digest (G.R. No. 45134)
Facts:
On December 18, 1929, Genanichi Ishi was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public Service Commission to operate a Ford automobile for the transportation of passengers in the Province of Davao, subject to conditions that he would not alter or expand his authorized manner of operation without prior authorization from the Commission. On October 23, 1935, after the effectivity of the Constitution on November 15, 1935, he applied for authority to increase his equipment by adding another Ford automobile, alleging insufficient registered units to meet public demand. The Commission denied the application on February 14, 1936, citing Article XIII, section 8 of the Constitution.Issues:
- Whether the petition for certiorari properly challenged the Commission’s denial of the application.
- Whether an application for authority to increase equipment under an existing certificate of public convenience is barred by Article XIII, section 8 of the Constitution because the applicant was not a Philippine citizen and did not qualify under the ownership requirement.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)