Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17684-85)
Facts:
Villa Rey Transit, Inc. v. Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-17684-85, May 30, 1962, the Supreme Court, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.
On April 7, 1959, Villa Rey Transit, Inc. (petitioner) purchased from Valentin A. Fernando five certificates of public convenience authorizing operation of a 45-bus TPU fleet on, among others, the Lingayen–Manila lines, for P249,500; one certificate was later found already expired and excluded. That same day Villa Rey applied to the Public Service Commission (respondent Commission) for approval of the purchase and for provisional authority to operate the lines covered by the purchased certificates.
By order dated May 19, 1959 the Commission provisionally approved the sale and granted provisional authority, conditioning continued authority on Villa Rey’s registering the 45 buses in its name within 45 days. Villa Rey began operations and repairs on the buses, sought and obtained an extension of the registration period to July 30, 1959, and within that extended period registered all 45 buses and submitted certified copies of the registrations to the Commission.
Meanwhile, on July 16, 1959 the Sheriff of Manila, pursuant to an execution in Civil Case No. 13798 (Eusebio E. Ferrer v. Valentin A. Fernando) allegedly sold two of the certificates to Eusebio E. Ferrer, who then purportedly sold them to Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc. (Pantranco). On July 22, 1959 the Commission issued an order in the Ferrer/Pantranco application provisionally approving those sales and granting provisional authority in their favor. Villa Rey filed a petition for reconsideration before the Commission contending that it had acquired the certificates earlier in April and that the sheriff’s sale could not convey rights it no longer had; Pantranco opposed. The Commission heard the applications jointly.
Parallel judicial proceedings existed: the execution sale arose from a CFI Pangasinan case (Civil Case No. 13798) from which Fernando had appealed to the Court of Appeals, and Villa Rey filed an action in the CFI Manila to cancel the sheriff’s sale and Ferrer’s deed to Pantranco — both judicial matters remained pending. On September 13, 1960 the Commission issued a joint decision concluding Pantra...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Public Service Commission have refrained from resolving the ownership dispute over the certificates of public convenience and held its determination in abeyance pending final adjudication by the regular courts?
- Did the Commission err in awarding provisional authority to Pantranco instead of recognizing Villa Rey’s prior purchase and provisional approval, thereby denying Villa Rey the right to continue operating the lines?
- Was Villa Rey in violation of the Commission’s provisional authority ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)