FILOMENA PECSON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. EMERENCIANO PECSON ET AL., DEFENDANTS. A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., APPELLANT.

On and before July, 1936, Emerenciano Pecson was the holder of two
certificates of public convenience. The first, for the Legaspi-Daraga line, was
acquired by purchase from Joaquin Oropeza with the approval of the Public
Service Commission in 1924. The second was issued upon application to that
Commission in 1928 for the Legaspi-Malabog line. He operated the said lines
since the years mentioned, always in his name.

When on July 10, 1936, L. D. Lockwood, President of the defendant A. L. Ammen
Transportation Company, hereafter named Alatco, visited Legaspi, Albay,
Emerenciano Pecson offered to sell his transportation business to the said
Alatco. The sale was agreed for P5,500; and a memorandum was drawn up, including
the two certificates of public convenience and one “Fargo” truck. It was
stipulated by Pecson that the four other trucks used by him in said lines were
not included because his sisters might have some claims thereto. Thereafter
Lockwood returned to Iriga, Camarines Sur, where he later received a telegram
from Atty. Leoncio Imperial protesting against the sale on the ground that his
clients, the sisters of Emerenciano (Filomena, Asuncion and Zoila) were the
owners of the transportation business.

Lockwood came to Manila and examined the records of the Public Service
Commission. He found that all the certificates were in the name of Emerenciano,
and that the Commission had never approved any sale, mortgage or lease or
encumbrance in favor of his sisters. Consequently he went through the
transaction, paying the agreed amount, and thereafter filing the necessary
application for approval of the Public Service Commission, which application was
granted on February 24, 1937, in spite of the opposition filed by the clients of
Atty. Leoncio Imperial, based on practically the same grounds now alleged in
this proceeding. On appeal, this Supreme Court uphold the action of the
Commission. The Commission issued a new certificate to the A. L. Ammen
Transportation Company for the two lines aforesaid.

Meanwhile on July 22, 1936, Emerenciano’s sisters Filomena and Zoila Pecson
and his niece Gloria Pecson (heir of Asuncion) instituted in the Albay court
this expediente, the principal purpose of which is to annul the sale made
by Emerenciano Pecson to the Alatco, and to get certificates of public
convenience for the two lines. They averred ownership of both certificates and
of the “Fargo” truck.

After hearing both parties, that court found for the plaintiffs, cancelled
the sale, required the appellant to convey the certificates to the plaintiffs so
that when the transfer is presented, the Public Service Commission may issue new
certificates of transfer to them. A similar order was made as to the “Fargo”
truck for registration with the District Engineer. The judgment added that if
the appellant should, within thirty days, fail to comply with the orders, the
Public Service Commission will be directed to cancel the certificates of public
convenience in the name of the Alatco for the Legaspi-Daraga and Legaspi-Malabog
lines, and to issue another in the name of Filomena Pecson, Zoila Pecson and
Gloria Pecson and a similar directive will be sent to the District Engineer for
the registration of the “Fargo” truck. Having vainly moved for a new trial, the
defendant perfected its appeal in due time.

There should be no question about the “Fargo” truck. It is registered with
the Bureau of Public Works in the name of Emerenciano Pecson. It was also
registered in the Public Service Commission as part of his equipment for the
above-mentioned lines. Plaintiffs failed to prove ownership thereof, the
decision indicating no proof of their dominion over the same.

And as to the certificates of public convenience the lower court clearly
erred. They were both granted by the Public Service Commission, and that body,
in a contest between Emerenciano Pecson and his sisters, expressly declared that
they belonged to Emerenciano. And that declaration was upheld by this Court on
appeal. None was better qualified than the Commission to know who was the
grantee of the certificates. That the sisters had in some way helped Emerenciano
to secure those certificates or that they had a “bastardo” connection^[1] therewith, as impliedly admitted by
appellant, does not alter the legal situation that, in the eyes of the law and
of the Commission, the owner of the certificates was Emerenciano Pecson.
Appellant had a right to rely on the records of the Commission, and in so doing
he should not suffer through any secret arrangements between Emerenciano and his
sisters.

The statute describes the conditions under which certificates of public
convenience are granted (sections 16 et al., Com. Act No. 146) and the
limitations therein as to the qualifications of grantees necessarily prohibit
the recognition or enforcement of any private arrangements the grantee may have
made with other undisclosed or unknown associates, what with the provision
penalizing individuals who shall engage in any public service without having
previously obtained the corresponding certificate.

The plaintiffs, having allowed Emerenciano to register, and publicly to
manage and conduct the lines in his own name, should not be heard to complain
against one who dealt with him in the belief that he was the owner, unless of
course there was fraudulent connivance between Emerenciano and the Alatco, or
some other inequitable combination repugnant to the law. Their remedy is
obviously a suit for damages against him.

Appellant’s rights are furthermore reinforced by the fact that the transfer
to it by Emerenciano was expressly approved by the Commission. For that matter,
if it is conceded that Emerenciano was a mere dummy of his sisters, the
Commission could properly cancel the certificate of Emerenciano on the ground of
misrepresentation (see Commonwealth Act No. 146, section 16 [m]),
Emerenciano not being the real party in interest. The Commission could then
proceed to award to the Alatco new certificates of public convenience for the
same lines of Legaspi-Daraga and Legaspi-Malabog.

The preceding considerations make it unnecessary to consider the question
raised by appellant as to the power of a court of first instance to issue orders
of the kind addressed to the Public Service Commission.

The appealed judgment will be reversed and one entered absolving the
defendant-appellant from the complaint. With costs.

Moran, C.J., Paras,
Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Hontiveros, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1] This is where the grantee of a
certificate is authorized to operate a certain number of trucks but because of
lack of capital or other reasons does not put the complete number into
operation, but permits other persons to operate trucks of their own in his name
and under his certificate.

---

PERFECTO, J.:

Upon the facts found by the lower court, if they should happen to be
supported by the evidence presented by both parties, there would not be any
doubt in our mind that plaintiffs are entitled to the remedies granted to them
by the appealed decision. Unfortunately, the evidence presented with the lower
court is not available to us and it seems that the parties are unable to
reconstitute it, and plaintiffs agreed with the facts stated in
defendant-appellant’s brief. Said facts do not support the lower court’s
conclusions, but on the contrary, justify reversal of the appealed decision and
dismissal of the complaint, and we have no alternative than to vote to said
effect.

Plaintiff’s is one of the uncounted tragedies caused by the last war.
Ours is not a lesser tragedy because we are compelled to render a judgment upon
the absolute justice of which we cannot be sure, because the truth of the facts
upon which the certainty of our conviction should be based is unascertainable,
having been irretrievably lost with the destroyed evidence.

---

BRIONES, M.:

Creo que no estamos en situacion de dictar
una sentencia definitiva en este asunto. Habiendose destruido el expediente,
creo que se debiera proceder a la celebracion de un nuevo juicio o dar plena
oportunidad a las partes para reconstituir los autos. Se dice, sin embargo, que
el abogado de los apelados ha significado estar conforme con los hechos tal como
estan expuestos en el alegato de la apelante. Esto es lo que ya no me parece
claro. Estimo que se debiera preguntar antes a dicho abogado si esta realmente
conforme con el relato de hechos de la apelante, renunciando a la reconstitucion
del expediente o a la celebracion de nuevo juicio.