G.R. No. L-7111. May 30, 1955
URSULA T. PAREDES, PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
denying the petition of Ursula T. Paredes praying that she be granted an
extension of time within which to effect the registration of certain number of
busses authorized in the certificate of public convenience granted her in Cass
No. 34415 which are necessary to operate on the ten lines mentioned in said
certificate.
Petitioner was the holder of a certificate of public convenience issued by
the Public Service Commission authorizing her to operate a passenger and freight
service on several lines in the City of Manila by virtue of a decision rendered
on April 29, 1950 (Case No. 34415). Before the approval of said certificate,
petitioner was the holder of other emergency certificates of public convenience
wherein she was authorized to operate a total of seventeen (17) busses. When the
decision in said case was rendered, the Commission was of the impression that
the seventeen busses which were originally authorized were still in operation,
so that, in addition, she was also authorized to register other three (3) busses
to complete the twenty authorized in the decision. letitioner, however, was not
able to register these three additional busses, nor to operate the other busses
she had been authorized, and so, on February 25, 1953. asha filed a petition
requesting that she ba allowed to re-register the total twenty units in order to
enable her to operate the lines granted her by the Commission. To this petition,
Antonio Heras and Vicente Heras. who are operating under the trade names MD and
JD Transits respectively, as well as the De Dios Transportation Company, also a
TPU operator on several lines, objected in writing and joined hands in
petitioning for the cancellation of the certificate of public convenience
granted to petitioner for her failure to register the units authorized in her
certificate.
This petition for re-registration as wall as the written opposition and
petition for cancellation were set for hearing to give the parties an
opportunity to substantiate their respective contentions, and, after due
hearing, the Commission issued an order on July 3. 1953 wherein it not only
denied petitioner’s request but amended its former decision by cancelling all
the lines granted her with the exception of the line Plaza Miranda-Balara, and
granting her authority to operate only one unit for that line. Her petition for
reconsideration having been denied, she interposed the present petition for
review.
It appears from the evidence that o.a April 29, 1950 petitioner was granted a
certificate of public convenience to operate a total of twenty busses on various
lines within the City of Manila and its suburbs. When said certificate was
granted, the Commission was of the impression that the seventeen busses which
were authorized her previously were still in operation so that, in addition, she
was also authorized to acquire other three busses within a specified period of
time. It appears, however, that nost of said seventeen busses were no longer in
operation for, as the record discloses, in 1949 she stored nine of her
authorized units, in 1950 she placed in storage five more units, and in 1951 she
stored two additional units, with ohe result that in this latter year sixteen of
the units she vae required to register and operate were not in operation. It
father appears that the three additional units petitioner was authorized to
acquire were never provided for in spite of the many extensions of time granted
her for that purpose. It vss likewise established that in 1952 petitioner
registered under her certificate only one bus and in 1953 also one bus. Asked to
explain why she failed to acouire the required units, petitioner attributed it
to “severe scarcity of trucks, accessories, tires, and materials as a result of
the unsettled war conditions”, and to prove it she presented a letter of the
International Harvester Company wherein it appears that she placed an order for
twenty-five units with which she intended to comply with her commitment but that they were not then available, But this letter shows that while the
trucks were not then available the company vas however willing to deliver them
by lots, i.e., nine in March. 1952, ten in April, 1952 and six in May, 1952. And
petitioner was not able to explain why she failed to avail herself of this offer
of the company. Upon these facts the Commission concluded that petitioner not
only failed to cor.ipiy with the conditions set forth in her certificate but
practically abandoned the service for a period of three years, Consequently, it
denied her petition for re-registration and cancelled her original certificate
by limiting her lire to one, with only one unit.
We find no reason for disturbing this finding of the Commission for tha same
is based on a sound principle. A grantee of a certificate who fails to comply
with his commitment for reasons which to the Commission do not appear
justifiable does not merit any grace on grounds of enuity, for he should be
deemed to have forfeited the privilege he has been granted. A public service
operator assumes a commitment which cannot be taken lightly, nor be made
dependent on whim or caprice, for behind it lies the paramount interest of the
public. Public necessity cannot be made to wait, nor sacrificed for private
convenience for, as the Commission has aptly said, “an operator who
unjustifiably abandons his service for two or three years by not registering the
necessary equipment forfeits his right to said equipment and the service
authorized to him,” Such is the predicament of petitioner. She has neglected her
duty for three years in disregard of the interest of the public and such neglect
amounts to a forfeiture.
It is true that petitioner made an attempt to prove at the hearing on her
motion for reconsideration that the reason for her failure to meet her
commitment was because ths International Harvester Company was not able to make
goods its offer to sell her twenty-five units due to circumstances beyond its
control, but the Commission found the attempt futile not only because it was
made after the main case hs been submitted, but also because even if it be
admitted as true it cannot relieve her of her dereliction of duty for the simple
reason that the Commission found that for two whole years she had withdrawn her
busses from operation and had placed them in storage without its previous
authority. Moreover, the failure of one company to furnish petitioner the units
she needs for her lines does not necessarily mean that she cannot obtain the
same units from other dealers or companies. And yet this she failed to do. She
cannot now complain, after jeopardizing public interest, that her request for
equity has baen denied. She alone is to blame for the consequences of her own
act.
Petitioner contends that the order authorizing her to prerate only one unit
out of the twenty she had been previously authorized is unconscionable
considering the heavy investment sh3 has made which amounts to a total of
P165,250. And. in this connection, she invokes the various decisions of this
Court wherein it was laid down as a basis principle underlying transportation
busines that it is the duty of the Commission to protect rather than destroy the
investment of an operator.[1]
The doctrine adverted to is sound but it has not application to petitioner.
That refers to operate of good standing and not to those whose investment has
deteriorated or disappeared through their own fault. In this respect we find
fitting this comment of the Commission:
“x x x x There can be no investment to protect when tha physical property
which constituted tha bulk of that investment has already disappeared either
because the applicant sold that property or because they became obsolete and the
applicant did not care to replace them at the time when she could have done so.
If she no longer has the trucks on which that investment was rrade, it is due
mainly to her own acts. The law requires the Commission to protect an investment
which still exists but if that investment is inexistent because tha property
constituting it has been sold or disposed of even to the detriment of the public
service, then there is no investment to protect.” (Order of August 28,
1953)
Petition is denied, without pronouncement as to costs,
Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Labrador, and Reyes,
J.B.L., JJ., concur
Concepcion, J., took no part.
[1] The cases referred to are:
Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, 52 Phil., 455; Ariaga v. Javellana, G.
R. No, L-4821, and Javallana v. Bariles, G. R. No. L-4347.