Title
San Pablo vs. Pantranco South Express, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-61461
Decision Date
Aug 21, 1987
PANTRANCO violated due process by operating a ferry service without MARINA approval, infringing on existing operators' rights; SC nullified its CPC amendment.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 140944)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Franchise Background
    • Pantranco South Express, Inc. (PANTRANCO) – domestic land transport corporation with Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) for bus services between Pasay City and Tacloban City.
    • Cardinal Shipping Corporation and Epitacio San Pablo (now represented by heirs) – existing ferry operators on the Matnog (Sorsogon)–Allen (Samar) route.
  • PANTRANCO’s Ferry Operations and Administrative Proceedings
    • March 27, 1980 – PANTRANCO applied to the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) for authority to lease/purchase M/V Black Double to operate a ferry service across San Bernardino Strait.
    • April 29, 1981 – MARINA denied the request, citing adequate service by existing operators and market saturation.
    • May 27, 1981 – PANTRANCO acquired M/V Black Double (P3 million) and began operating without separate CPC.
    • October 1, 1981 – Board of Transportation (BOT) hearing ordered; PANTRANCO enjoined from operating pending resolution.
    • October 20, 1981 – Department of Justice opinion: no separate CPC needed for private ferry incidental to PANTRANCO’s bus franchise.
    • October 23, 1981 – BOT amended PANTRANCO’s CPC to include private ferry service exclusive to its buses, passengers, and trucks, subject to separate CPC if offered to the public.
    • July 21, 1982 – BOT denied motions for reconsideration filed by Cardinal Shipping and San Pablo’s heirs.
    • Post-July 1982 – San Pablo’s heirs (G.R. No. 61461) and Cardinal Shipping (G.R. No. 61501) separately petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction to revoke the BOT decision.

Issues:

  • Due Process and Procedural Compliance
    • Did BOT violate Section 16(m) of the Public Service Act and procedural rules by amending PANTRANCO’s CPC motu proprio without formal application and separate proceedings?
  • Nature of the Matnog–Allen Service
    • Is the sea crossing a “ferry” or a distinct coastwise/interisland shipping service?
    • Can the open-sea route be treated as a continuation of the highway?
  • Classification of PANTRANCO’s Vessel Operations
    • Is M/V Black Double a private ferry exclusive to PANTRANCO’s vehicles and passengers?
    • Does separate fare collection and ticketing on the vessel render it a common carrier?
  • Regulatory Requirements and Maritime Authority
    • Did PANTRANCO need separate MARINA approval and CPC for vessel acquisition and interisland service?
    • Did the BOT’s grant contravene BOT–MARINA agreements and interisland shipping policies?
  • Competitive and Policy Considerations
    • Did BOT’s amendment violate the “prior operator” rule and unduly burden existing operators?
    • Did PANTRANCO’s operations amount to unfair competition on an adequately served route?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.