Case Digest (G.R. No. 44096)
Facts:
- Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. (petitioner) vs. Tanay Transit Co., represented by Teodoro R. Yangco (respondent).
- Inocencio Sta. Ana, agent for Tanay Transit Co., petitioned the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate auto-buses on the Pililla-Manila line.
- The certificate allowed passenger and freight pick-up in several municipalities but prohibited it between Binangonan and Manila due to existing service by the Manila Railroad Company.
- Tanay Transit Co. filed additional petitions (case No. 11371 and case No. 21766) to amend its route and increase equipment, aiming to expand service to Taytay and Cainta.
- Pasay Transportation Co. was notified of hearings but did not file an opposition despite initial intentions.
- PSC granted new routes to Tanay Transit Co. on December 20, 1930, but later set aside this order.
- On April 30, 1931, PSC approved a stipulation between Tanay Transit Co. and Raymundo Transportation Co. for an increased schedule.
- On August 29, 1931, Tanay Transit Co. filed another petition to further amend its route and lift restrictions on passenger and freight pick-up, which was granted.
- On September 25, 1933, Pasay Transportation Co. filed a "Protest-Petition for Reconsideration and a Rehearing," denied by PSC on July 16, 1935.
- Pasay Transportation Co. contended that PSC erred in granting additional trips and lifting prohibitions.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The court ruled that the Public Service Commission did not err in granting additional trips to Tanay Transit Co.
- The cancellation of the prohibition to pick up freight and passengers between Rosario and Manila was justified.
- The court held that the Public Service Comm...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The appeal by Pasay Transportation Co. was deemed untimely, filed over two years after the PSC's decision, violating the thirty-day appeal period.
- The "Protest-Petition for Reconsideration and a Rehearing" wa...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. 44096)
Facts:
The case involves Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. as the petitioner and Tanay Transit Co., represented by Teodoro R. Yangco, as the respondent. The events leading to this case began when Inocencio Sta. Ana, acting as an agent for Tanay Transit Co., filed a petition with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to obtain a certificate of public convenience to operate auto-buses on the Pililla-Manila line. This certificate allowed the company to pick up passengers and freight in several municipalities, including Tanay, Baras, Morong, Cardona, and Binangonan, but prohibited them from doing so between Binangonan and Manila due to the existing service by the Manila Railroad Company. Subsequently, Tanay Transit Co. sought amendments to its route and an increase in its equipment through additional petitions, including case No. 11371 and case No. 21766, which aimed to expand its service to include Taytay and Cainta.
Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. was notified of the hearings regarding these petitions but failed to file an opposition despite their counsel's initial promise to do so. The PSC granted new routes to Tanay Transit Co. on December 20, 1930, but later set aside this order. On April 30, 1931, the PSC approved a stipulation between Tanay Transit Co. and Raymundo Transportation Co., which included an increase in the time schedule for Tanay Transit Co. On August 29, 1931, Tanay Transit Co. filed another petition to amend its route further and to lift the restrictions on picking up and dropping off passengers and freight. This petition was granted. On September 25, 1933, Pasay Transpo...