JOHNNY SORITA, ISMAEL CALDERON, EDUARDO TAGUIAM, CONRADO ESPEJO, FELIPE VENTURA, PAQUITO CABUENA AND JOSE B. TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANGEL FORNE…

This case raises the issue of
whether or not, under the Public Service Law, Commonwealth Act No. 146, as
amended, motorboat services for passenger and freight on navigable inland rivers
require certificates of public convenience from the Public Service
Commission.

On July 9,
1962,
respondent Angel Forneas filed with the Public Service Commission an amended
application for a certificate of public convenience for the operation of water
transportation (motorboats) along the Cagayan River between Masical, Amulung and
Tupang, Alcala, all in the province of Cagayan, under a rate and time schedule
authorized by the said Commission. The petitioners, who are themselves owners
and operators of motorboats with permits and certificates of ownership issued by
the Bureau of Customs and engaged in ferry and/or coastwise trade for passengers
and cargoes in, among others, the line above applied for, opposed the
aforementioned application on the grounds that the applicant was not financially
capable to undertake the proposed venture and that the said d service was
already being adequately rendered by them. Subsequently, too, the herein
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the above application on the ground that
the Public Service Commission had no jurisdiction over its subject matter under
Section 13(a) of the Public Service Act.

In a decision dated
January 16,
1963, the
respondent Commission denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and granted the
certificate applied for. The Commissioner expressly found that the applicant was
legally and financially qualified for the proposed service and that public
necessity and convenience demanded the same.

The petitioners contend that
under Section 13(a) of the Public Service Act, Commonwealth Act No. 146, as
amended, the respondent Commission has no authority to issue a certificate of
public convenience for the motorboats covered by the application of respondent
Angel Forneas which are, according to the said Commission, just about 2.03 net
tons each. On the other hand, the herein respondents maintain that exemption
from a prior certificate of public convenience granted by the said section is
exclusive to vessels of more than three tons devoted to interisland service and
not inland passenger transportation service over municipal
rivers.

The provision of the Public
Service Act which the petitioners claim denies to the respondent Commission the
authority to issue certificates of public convenience for motorboat services on
navigable inland rivers reads as follows:

“Sec. 13(a) The Commission shall
have jurisdiction, supervision, and control over all public services and their
franchises, equipment, and other properties, and in the exercise of its
authority, it shall have the necessary powers and the aid of the public force:
Provided, That public service owned or operated by government-owned or
controlled corporations shall be regulated by the Commission in the same way as
privately-owned public services, but certificates of public convenience or
certificates of public convenience and necessity shall not be required of such
corporations: And provided, further, That it shall have no authority to require
steamboats, motorships and steamship lines, whether privately-owned or owned or
operated by any Government controlled corporation or instrumentality to obtain
certificate of public convenience or to prescribe their definite routes of
service.”

It impresses us as relevant that
the above-quoted section, relative to the issue under consideration, speaks
alone of “steamboats, motorships and steamship lines.” In the next succeeding
paragraph in which the same section defines the term “public service,”[1] it speaks of the same subject matter
and yet employs different descriptive denominations, to wit: “steamboat or
steamship line, pontines, ferries, and water craft.” (Sec. 13(b) Evidently,
therefore, the law contemplates to exempt from the requisite certificate of
public convenience not every species or kind of water vessel but only such as
would properly fall within the class of “steamboats, motorships and steamship
lines.” Otherwise, it would not have been so particular with the above
distinction.

In drawing the line between
“steamboats, motorships, and steamship lines” on one side and “pontines,
ferries, and water crafts” on the other, Congress apparently means to accept the
view that “boat, craft and water craft” are usually applied to small vessels,
while larger vessels are usually referred to by the terms “steamer, steamship or
vessel.” (The Saxon, D.C.S.C. 269, 641; 40 Words and Phrases 215) and that in
its generic sense “ship” means any seagoing craft larger than an undecked boat.
(Swan v. U.S., 19 Ct. C1. 51). In fact, this Court has previously construed the
above specification of “steamboats, motorships and steamship lines,” as used in
Section 13(a) of the Public Service Act, as referring alone to vessels of
“considerable tonnage” and employed to sea service “involving more or less great
distances and over more or less turbulent and dangerous waters of the open sea.”
(Javellana et al. v. Public Service Commission, 98 Phil. 964; Jugueta et al, v.
Public Service Commission, G. R. No. L-12044, May
20, 1959). For really, “steamboats,
motorships, and steamship lines,” as the said terms are accepted in Common and
commercial parlance, refer only to sea vehicles engaged in coastwise or
interisland service.

In the premises, therefore,
motorboats and water crafts intended for and actually devoted to inter-municipal
transportation service, plying on inland water routes like municipal rivers and
channels, must be set apart from the vehicles specified in Section 13 (a) which,
by their very size, nature and purpose, are incapable of navigating on municipal
rivers.

To be sure, then, this Court
reads Section 13, paragraph (a) of the Public Service Act, in relation to
paragraph (b) of the same section, as providing that when the vessel is of a
tonnage and engineering properly accepted for steamers, steamships and liners,
and the same is essentially for and actually devoted to inter-island service, it
is exempt from securing from the Public Service Commission a prior certificate
of public convenience. Otherwise, when it is of a size and construction as to be
fit merely for river navigation, it must first secure from the said Commission
the above certificate before it may set about as a common carrier. This does not
seem to us to be an entirely new rule considering that as far back as some
fourteen years ago, in the case of Municipality of Gattaran v. Elizaga, 91 Phil.
440, decided May 28, 1952, we held that –

“x x x When a private party,
winner in a public bidding conducted by the Municipal Council, like Fruto
Elizaga, get the permit to operate a municipal ferry from the municipality,
before he can operate, he must first obtain a certificate or permit from the
Public Service Commission which upon granting it will fix the rates to be
charged by him as well as specify the kind of equipment to be used by him for
the comfort, convenience and safety of the public using the ferry. x x x.”
(Underscoring supplied)

Apart from the legislative
intention apparent from the text of Section 13 (a) of the Public Service Act —
this Court has gone through the records of the proceedings which attended the
passage of the said law and its amendments but found no material or
documentation of a debate on the said section – still another consideration
commends itself to the conclusion we have reached. Inasmuch as judicial notice
may be held of the fact that the Bureau of Customs does not have adequate
offices or agencies to oversee watercrafts on every inland or municipal rivers,
all its resources and personnel being devoted to the control, regulation and
supervision of port or pier affairs, public interest stands much to gain from
the requirement that passenger motorboats on inland municipal rivers should
first secure from the Public Service Commission due authorization to so operate
as a common carrier. For, otherwise, they would be free from any effective
government supervision. On one hand, the Bureau of Customs is more than laden
with its duties at the ports; on the other, the Public Service Commission,
without the certificate of public convenience, can hardly exact discipline from
the motorboat operators. The power of the said Commission to demand compliance
with its rules and regulations for the safety and convenience of general public
is potent and real only to the extent that it is conceded the power to cancel or
revoke the certificate of authorization of every public service. Exempted from
such certificates, therefore, motorboats operators would be beyond the said
Commission’s sphere of effective discipline.

The attack on the
respondent-applicant’s financial capacity cannot be seriously entertained in
this appeal. The finding of the Public Service Commission thereon is essentially
a factual determination which, in a host of cases, this Court has said it will
not interfere unless patently unsupported by evidence. A review of the records
of this case does not warrant such an interference.

FOR ALL THE
FOREGOING,
the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. No pronouncement as to
costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes,J. B. L.,
Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.