Case Summary (G.R. No. 37661)
Petition for Writ of Prohibition
The petitioner filed a writ of prohibition against the respondents seeking to stop the enforcement of the Commission’s requirement that they file an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The petitioner asserts that it is not a public service or a public utility and thus is not bound by the regulations governing common carriers.
Background of Previous Rulings
In a prior case, G.R. No. 36752, the Supreme Court found the suit premature as the Public Service Commission had not yet officially determined the petitioner’s status as a public utility. Following this, the Commission formally ordered the petitioner to apply for the necessary certificate. The petitioner later responded, reiterating its position that it is not a public service or utility.
Commission's Resolution
After reviewing the petitioner’s response, the Public Service Commission ruled that the operation of the petitioner's auto-trucks, registered under the TH license, was indeed subject to their jurisdiction, as the trucks were involved in the transportation of goods for compensation. This led to an order requiring the petitioner to file an application within fifteen days, failing which its license plates would be confiscated.
Assertion of Facts
On July 26, 1932, the parties submitted an agreed statement of facts, affirming that the petitioner conducted its business as a customs broker for twenty years, utilizing trucks solely for transporting goods of its identified customers. The involvement of these trucks for hire or compensation prompted the Commission's requirement for regulation as a public utility.
Historical Context of Regulations
Historically, the governing laws on public utilities did not previously encompass the truck operations of the petitioner. The latest amendments to the Public Service Act (Act No. 3316) changed the definition of "public service," adding confusion about whether or not the petitioner’s operations fell under this umbrella.
Jurisdictional Contentions
The court examined whether the amendments intended to extend jurisdiction over private carriers not engaged in public use. The respondents argued that operations for hire or compensation qualified as public service, permitting the Commission's oversight. However, the court indicated that while the definition changed, the requisite element of public use remained significant.
Judicial Findings
Ultimately, the court found that the legislative intent did not appear to encompass private businesses like those of the petitioner within the scope of public services. The court underscored that even though the petitioner’s operations were for hire, the lack of a public interest component rendered them outside the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
Decision Outcome
The ruling granted the writ of prohibition, affirming that the Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. w
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 37661)
Case Overview
- The case involves a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. against the Public Service Commission and A. D. Williams, asserting that the commission's requirement for the petitioner to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity for operating its auto-trucks is unlawful.
- The Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed this matter, which falls under its original jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
- The petitioner, Luzon Brokerage Co., has been operating as a customs broker for approximately twenty years, maintaining a fleet of trucks used exclusively to transport goods for its customers.
- The Public Service Commission issued a directive requiring the petitioner to apply for a certificate of public convenience, citing that the trucks are registered under the TH denomination, indicating they are used for hire or compensation.
- The petitioner argues that it does not constitute a public service or public utility under relevant laws and therefore should not be subjected to the commission's jurisdiction.
Previous Proceedings
- The petitioner had previously filed a similar petition (G. R. No. 36752) which was denied on the grounds that the case was premature and no jurisdiction had been exercised by the commission at that time.
- Following that ruling, the commission issued a letter on May 9, 1932, mandating the petitioner to file an application for a certificate within thirty days.
Petitioner’s Position
- The petitioner maintained that its operations do not qualify as a public utility under the Public Service Law.
- I