FRANCISCO JAVIER, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. THE BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC., INTERVENOR AND APPELLANT.

On
the 24th day of August, 1932, the Public Service Commission of the
Philippine Islands granted a certificate of public convenience for the
operation of a taxicab service within the City of Manila and
surrounding territory. In connection with the application for this
certificate, Javier stated that he desired to use midget motor
propelled vehicles and expected to use Austin cars.

On
August 18, 1932, the Bachrach Motor Company, Inc., filed a complaint in
the Court of First Instance of Manila for the sum of P20,000 to be paid
by Francisco Javier, and in connection with that suit, a writ of
attachment was issued. Pursuant to the instructions of the Bachrach
Motor Company, Inc., the sheriff of Manila garnished the interests of
Javier in the certificate above-mentioned. Subsequently, Javier filed a
motion with the Public Service Commission praying that he be allowed to
substitute Bantam Fords in lieu of Austin cars, which application was
granted by the Public Service Commission ex-parte and without hearing.

A week later the Bachrach Motor Company, Inc., filed a motion as
intervenor asking for the reconsideration of the last order of the
Public Service Commission on the ground that in view of the attachment,
the Public Service Commission could not legally issue the order
authorizing the substitution of one type of car for another.

This motion was denied, and the Bachrach Motor Company, Inc., appeals
to this court arguing that under section 16 of Act No. 3108, holders of
certificates of public convenience may with the approval of the Public
Service Commission alienate or encumber their property and franchises,
that therefore such properties are subject to attachment, and when
attached, the Public Service Commission cannot revoke or change in form
or substance these certificates. The Public Service Commission in its
decision denying appellant’s motion held that the modification granted
to appellee was one in form and not in substance, and in this we
concur. No authority is cited to sustain the doctrine that attachment per se
paralyzes the functions of the commission over public utilities, and
such doctrine being obviously against public interests, the contention
of appellant cannot be seriously entertained.

Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to discuss any of the other questions raised by the briefs.

The orders appealed from are affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.