Facts:

• The Philippine Shipowners' Association (petitioner) filed a petition against the Public Utility Commission (respondent) in 1926.
• The petitioner sought to prohibit revenue cutters operated by the Bureau of Commerce and Industry from competing with privately-owned vessels on specific routes.
• The petitioner argued that private vessels provided adequate service without public complaints.
• The petitioner claimed that revenue cutters represented unfair competition, risking the withdrawal of private vessels and harming both owners and the public.
• The Bureau, represented by the Attorney-General, countered that private vessels offered inadequate service, often failing to carry passengers and freight, lacking fixed schedules, and having insufficient accommodations.
• The Bureau claimed to have received numerous complaints about private vessel services, justifying the need for government-operated revenue cutters.
• After a hearing, the Acting Public Utility Commissioner dismissed the petition.
• The petitioner’s motion for a new trial and reconsideration was denied, leading to a review of the Commission's decision.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no merit in the claims of the Philippine Shipowners' Association.
• The Court upheld the Public Utility Commission's decision, affirming that the operation of revenue cutters ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court reasoned that the petitioner did not prove that government-operated revenue cutters engaged in unfair competition.
• Unlike the National Coal Co. vs. Public Utility Commission case, where government vessels charged significantly lower rates, no similar circumstances existed here.
• The evidence presented did not substantiate claims of unfair compe...continue reading