Case Digest (G.R. No. 37869)
Facts:
Panay Autobus Company v. Philippine Railway Co., G.R. No. 37869, February 17, 1933, the Supreme Court, Vickers, J., writing for the Court; Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concurring.On April 18, 1932 R. R. Hancock, vice-president and general manager of the Philippine Railway Co., filed with the Public Service Commission case No. 31724 requesting authority "to alter the freight rates of the Philippine Railway Company on the Cebu and Panay Divisions whenever in our judgment we find it necessary in order to meet the competition of road trucks and auto busses," and that the rates then in effect be considered maximums so the railway might fix lower rates at its discretion. On April 23, 1932 the railway separately submitted, in case No. 31827, proposed Freight Classification No. 5 and Freight Tariff No. 8 for the Panay Division, and revised traffic rules reflecting reductions in many freight items.
The Commission set the matter for hearing on June 21, 1932 and notified affected operators. On May 28, 1932 the Cebu Autobus Company filed an opposition arguing, inter alia, that it held a certificate of public convenience for passenger and freight service in Cebu, that "sliding" or flexible rates were repugnant to public utility regulation, would foster ruinous competition, and would invite discriminatory enforcement. At the June 21 hearing Attorney Alvear appeared for the Cebu Autobus Company and reserved the right to oppose on behalf of Panay Autobus Company; Hancock testified for the railway explaining the reductions as a response to falling market prices and competition and asserting the railway would apply any reductions uniformly and notify the Commission.
The Public Service Commission, in a written decision dated June 21, 1932, approved Freight Classification No. 5 and Freight Tariff No. 8 for the Panay Division effective immediately, and overruled Alvear's legal objection by invoking Article 15(h) (and discussing Article 16) of Act No. 3108. On June 28, 1932 the Panay Autobus Company...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Public Service Commission authorized to delegate to the Philippine Railway Co. the power to alter its freight rates at will so as to meet competition?
- Did the Public Service Commission commit reversible error in denying the Panay Autobus Company's m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)