FAUSTO BARREDO, FRANCISCO JAVIER, ANA VIUDA DE COROMINAS, JULIO DANON, MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB COMPANY AND ACRO TAXICAB COMPANY, PETITIONERS, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RA…

Ramon Silos, on January 9, 1933, filed before the Public Service
Commission an application for special permit to operate a taxicab
service pending the final determination of his original application
filed in case No. 34985. Panfilo Sevillano, on the 4th of January,
1933, filed a similar application in the Public Service Commission in
case No. 34989. The Austin Taxicab Company filed a similar application
on January 10, 1933, known as Public Service case No. 35003. Opposition
was filed by Fausto Barredo, Francisco Javier, Ana Vda. De Corominas,
Julio Danon, Manila Yellow Taxicab Company, and Aero Taxicab Company,
who are now operating taxicab services in the City of Manila. After
argument, but without taking any testimony, the Public Service
Commission on January 12, 1933 granted the special permits requested.
The oppositors now bring certiorari proceedings under the provisions of
section 35 of Act No. 3108 with a prayer to annul the above mentioned
orders of the Public Service Commission entered on the 12th of January,
1933.

Although there are three separate proceedings before
the Public Service Commission, the petitioners in this case, without
authority or permission, consolidated them into one case. To prevent
similar practice in the future the clerk of this court is directed to
assess filing fees as if three applications for certiorari were brought
in this court.

Special or provisional permits have been
issued by the Public Service Commission for about ten years. There is
no special provision of law authorizing such action.

The
powers of the Public Service Commission are found in the legislation
creating that body. Their powers are limited to those expressly granted
or necessarily implied from those granted. In our basic law
certificates of public convenience can only be granted after hearing
and this court on review is compelled to set aside orders: “When it
clearly appears that there was no evidence before the commission to
support reasonably such order.” The action of the Public Service
Commission in granting these special or provisional permits is not only
not authorized by their organic law, but is forbidden by the
requirement to take evidence before issuing orders. The orders
complained of must therefore be set aside and declared of no effect.

As above stated the commission has been issuing such orders for about
ten years without question. Both the commission and the applicants have
acted in good faith. Large investments have been made by the applicants
pursuant to such permits. In order to give the Public Service
Commission an opportunity to take evidence and decide whether or not it
would be in the interest of the public to authorize the applicants to
operate midget or small taxicabs in the City of Manila and its
environments, the effective date of the cancellation of these special
or provisional permits is fixed at July 1, 1933 unless in the meantime
the Public Service Commission by proper action has rendered such
cancellation unnecessary. This postponement of cancellation must not be
considered as authority to put in service taxicabs under such permits
after the date of promulgation of this decision. Costs against the
individual respondents. So ordered.

Villamor, Villa-Real, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.