Case Digest (G.R. No. 37661)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 37661)
Facts:
Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission and A. D. Williams, G.R. No. 37661. November 16, 1932, Supreme Court En Banc, Butte, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc., a long-established customs broker, sued to obtain a writ of prohibition restraining the Public Service Commission (PSC) and A. D. Williams, Director of the Bureau of Public Works, from requiring the petitioner to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for its fleet of trucks and from confiscating the trucks' TH license plates. The complaint arose after the PSC, invoking section 13 of Act No. 3108 as amended by Act No. 3316, sent a letter (May 9, 1932) directing the petitioner to file such an application and later adopted a resolution (served June 11, 1932) ordering the petitioner to file within fifteen days or have its TH plates confiscated via the Director of Public Works.
An earlier, substantially identical prohibition petition (G.R. No. 36752) had been denied by this Court on February 5, 1932, as premature because the PSC had not yet taken action to determine whether the petitioner’s operation fell within its statutory jurisdiction. After the PSC's May letter and June resolution, the petitioner filed the present original action for a writ of prohibition on June 22, 1932; a Vacation Justice granted a preliminary injunction the same day and required respondents to answer. The Attorney-General filed an answer (July 1, 1932) admitting the petitioner’s long-standing business as customs broker and operation of trucks to carry cargoes for compensation but denying the petition’s legal contention.
On July 26, 1932, the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts: the petitioner had for about twenty years operated a fleet of trucks exclusively to carry goods for its particular customers in connection with its customs-brokerage business; it did not solicit or hold itself out to the general public; compensation for transportation was charged pursuant to individual contracts with patrons; trucks were registered under the TH denomination with the Bureau of Public Works; prior to the amendment effected by Act No. 3316 (effective Dec. 4, 1926) the petitioner’s truck operations had not been treated as subject to regulation as a common carrier or public utility. The PSC’s position was that the amended §13—which replaced “public utility” with “public service,” removed the phrase “for public use,” and inserted “for hire or compensation”—brought the petitioner’s truck operation within its jurisdiction even if the trucks served a limited clientele.
The Court of original jurisdiction (this Court) was asked to determine whether the PSC had jurisdiction over the petitioner’s truck operations and whether the writ of prohibition should issue to prevent enforcement of the PSC’s demand and the threatened confiscation of the TH plates.
Issues:
- Is a writ of prohibition appropriate to restrain the Public Service Commission and the Director of Public Works from enforcing the PSC’s order requiring the petitioner to apply for a certificate of public convenience and from confiscating its TH plates?
- Did the amendment to section 13 of Act No. 3108 by Act No. 3316—the substitution of “public service” for “public utility,” the removal of “for public use,” and the insertion of “for hire or compensation”—bring the petitioner’s truck operations (limited to carrying its customers’ goods) within the jurisdiction and control of the Public Service Commission?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)