PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND RAFAEL PEREZ SAMANILLO, RESPONDENTS.

Original
action for certiorari. Petitioner is the operator of an autobus line
within the City of Manila, over a route prescribed by respondent, the
Public Service Commission. Some time ago, on complaint of some property
owners situated on the route then being used in the City of Manila by
petitioner, the route was changed and the busses were routed past the
property of Samanillo. At that time petitioner challenged the right of
the Public Service Commission to change its route within the City of
Manila, and in the order then issued the then Public Service Commission
stated that the route would not again be changed without the consent of
the petitioner.

Samanillo is the owner of quite a large real
estate development for residential purposes’ and complained to the
Governor-General that the operation of the busses of petitioner was
seriously affecting the rental value of his property due to dust,
noise, and congestion on the streets fronting his property. The
Governor-General referred the complaint to the Public Service
Commission. After hearing the evidence and an ocular inspection, that
body directed a modification and changed the route in accordance with
the desires of respondent Samanillo. Whereupon petitioner brings this
action claiming that the Public Service Commission acted beyond and
outside its jurisdiction and had arbitrarily and illegally infringed
upon the rights of petitioner.

Petitioner urges that as the
complainant to the Governor-General was acting in his capacity as
property owner and not as a user of the public utility of petitioner,
his complaint was not within the jurisdiction of the Public Service
Commission. This contention was based on the dictum contained in City
of Manila vs. Manila Electric R. R. and Light Company and
Board of Public Utility Commissioners (36 Phil., 89-95). In that case
there was a conflict between the City of Manila and the predecessors of
the present Public Service Commission as to its jurisdiction over the
speed of street-cars on certain streets in the City of Manila. No such
conflict is presented in this case.

The City of Manila has
certain rights, jurisdiction, and control over the streets of the City
of Manila, but their rights are not in question in these proceedings,
nor has the City of Manila intervened therein. Whatever rights the
Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., has to the utilization of the streets
of the City of Manila, it has by virtue of the franchise granted by the
Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission, under the
Act creating that body, may at any time order a rehearing to extend,
revoke, or modify any order made by it.

In considering
whether an order shall be issued granting, extending, or modifying a
franchise to a public utility, the Public Service Commission is not
limited to a mere consideration of the public utility and its patrons.
As this court has heretofore said, the inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands, the public in general, although they may not be personally
represented at the hearings of the Public Service Commission, are the
real parties in interest, and their rights and interests should be
considered and protected by the Public Service Commission.

Formerly all public roads and streets were dedicated to general public
uses. With the complexities of modern times, with the various widths
and surfaces of the roads and the various kinds of vehicles using the
same, it is necessary for the police power of the State, for the
benefit of all, to place reasonable restrictions upon the use of
certain thoroughfares. While that restriction is primarily one for the
police power of the municipality, it does not mean that reasons that
might appeal to the municipality may not also be considered by the
Public Service Commission in authorizing a bus line or a trucking
company to use a thoroughfare through a residential district, and the
exercise of that power is not arbitrary nor is it an assumption of
power not impliedly given to the commission, when it is remembered that
it is to act representing the State for the public good in general.

Nor can we agree with the contentions of petitioner that the former
Public Service Commission, having said that it would not change the
route given to petitioner without its consent is binding in the future.
Nobody has a right to prevent the exercise of the legal powers of that
body by its successors. Nor can the Public Service Commission issue any
order that cannot be changed because the law expressly gives the Public
Service Commission a right to modify its orders.

The petition for certiorari is therefore denied. Costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Imperial, JJ., concur.