G.R. No. 37661 - Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission

Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc., a corporation engaged in customs brokerage for over twenty years in Manila, operates a fleet of auto-trucks registered under the TH denomination.
The petitioner’s trucks are used exclusively to transport cargoes belonging to its particular customers rather than to offer transportation indiscriminately to the public.
The petitioner had previously filed a similar petition for a writ of prohibition (G.R. No. 36752) which was dismissed on the ground of prematurity, as no formal determination had been made whether its business fell within the public utility or public service definitions.

The Intervention of the Public Service Commission (PSC) and Bureau of Public Works

The PSC, in light of the amended statutory provisions, issued a letter dated May 9, 1932, requiring the petitioner to file within thirty days an application for a certificate of public convenience under section 13 of Act No. 3108, as amended.
The letter emphasized that the registration of the trucks under the TH denomination indicated that they were used for the transportation of cargo for compensation, thus ostensibly subjecting them to regulation by the PSC under the amended statute.

On June 3, 1932, the petitioner, through its counsel, replied that it was not a “public service” or “public utility” and therefore should not be compelled to secure a certificate of public convenience.
In reaction, the PSC adopted a resolution (served as Exhibit C) on June 9, 1932, ordering the petitioner to file the application within fifteen days, warning that non-compliance would lead to the confiscation of the TH license plates by the Director of Public Works.
The petitioner then filed the present action for a writ of prohibition on June 22, 1932, which was accompanied by a preliminary injunction compelling the respondents to answer the petition.
An agreed statement of facts was later filed by the parties, clearly outlining that the petitioner’s operational mode—as a customs broker who occasionally provides transportation services exclusively for its clients—had historically not been subjected to PSC regulation.

Historically, motor trucks registered under various denominations by the Bureau of Public Works served different functions:

“T” for trucks carrying the owner’s goods exclusively;
“TH” for trucks used to transport goods for hire or compensation;
“TG” for trucks licensed as garages; and
“TPU” for trucks devoted to public use or service under a certificate of public convenience.

Prior to the amendments introduced by Act No. 3316, the operation of the petitioner’s trucks had not been interpreted as subject to the jurisdiction of the PSC because the petitioner’s business was not then viewed as that of a public or common carrier.
The amendments in question replaced the term “public utility” with “public service,” omitted the phrase “for public use,” and inserted “for hire or compensation,” prompting the PSC to assert expanded jurisdiction over such operations.

Whether the amended language in section 13 of Act No. 3108—as modified by Act No. 3316—effectively extends the PSC’s supervisory and regulatory jurisdiction to include the petitioner’s business, even though it does not function as a common or indiscriminate public carrier.
Whether the petitioner’s transportation activities—conducted as an ancillary service to customs brokerage—should be classified as a “public service” subject to the statutory certificate requirement despite being confined to a limited clientele.

Whether the imposition of the requirement to secure a certificate of public convenience and necessity constitutes an appropriate exercise of the PSC’s jurisdiction over the petitioner’s operations.
Whether the legal and factual framework, including historical practice and the nature of the petitioner’s business, supports the extension of such regulation to this particular business model.