Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3622)
Facts:
Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. v. Felipe C. Lubaton, G.R. No. L-3622, July 26, 1951, the Supreme Court, Pablo, J., writing for the Court.Felipe C. Lubaton (respondent) applied to the Public Service Commission for a regular certificate of public convenience to operate 21 autotrucks for passengers and freight on several Mindanao routes (Dipolog–Pagadian via Misamis; Dipolog–Sindangan; Dipolog–Dapitan; Dipolog–Plaridel via Calamba; Dipolog–Baliangao via Calamba; Dipolog–Pinan via Polanco). The existing operators on those lines, Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. (petitioner) and Mindanao Bus Company (oppositor), opposed the application before the Commission.
The Commission, after hearing evidence, found that along the lines in question there were frequently many passengers unable to secure accommodation because the vehicles of the two incumbent companies were often fully loaded; that the number of units then employed was insufficient for passengers and freight; and that there was a real need to increase the number of units to meet public demand and convenience. The Commission thereupon granted Lubaton a regular certificate of public convenience for 12 vehicles, noting that six of those vehicles had previously been operated under a provisional emergency certificate issued October 21, 1948 (C. No. 10077).
Interprovincial sought review in this Court by a petition for certiorari (recurso de certiorari), asking revocation of the Commission's grant; Mindanao Bus Company did not appeal. Interprovincial offered evidence that the provisional grant to Lubaton had caused it losses; that a regular certificate to Lubaton would subject it to ruinous competition; and that it had paid-in capital of P250,000 and reserves of P100,000 and was ready to put additional units into operation if the Commission so required. The Commission and this Court noted, however, that if Interprovincial truly intended to meet public demand it should have earlier sought authorization to increase its own units rather than await Lubaton's provisional operation.
After both parties filed their briefs, Interprovincial moved to amend its assignment of error No. II to add three lines (the Dipolog–Pagadian via Misamis; Dipolog–Sindangan; and Dipolog–Dapitan lines) it alleged had been inadvertently omitted from its original statement of error. The motion was supported by an affidavit claiming inadvertence in omission; Lubaton opposed, arguing the alleged omissions had not be...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Public Service Commission err in granting Lubaton a regular certificate of public convenience authorizing operation of additional vehicles on the specified lines?
- Should the Court allow Interprovincial to amend its assignment of errors (No. II) after briefs were filed to add three omitted lines on the gro...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)