RAMON L. CORPUS, PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

On January 12, 1946, respondent commission granted petitioner a certificate
of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service for passengers and
freight on the lines Manila-Divisoria via Santa Mesa; San Juan-Divisoria via
Santa Mesa; Montalban-Manila via Quezon City and España; and Navotas-Divisoria
via Malabon and Caloocan, and vice-versa. The commission provided that the
certificate shall be valid only “until December 31, 1947.” Disagreeing with this
limitation, petitioner came to us to seek modification.

There is no question as to the authority of the commission to fix a time
limit. Section 16 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 provides that “no such certificate
shall be issued for a period of more than 50 years.” The maximum period of 50
years is the same as the one set by section 8 of Article XIV of the
Constitution.

The issue here is whether the commission, in fixing the limit here in
question, committed an abuse of discretion or exceeded the bounds of reasonable
judgment to the extent of committing an injustice requiring a corrective measure
from this Court. Although petitioner stated in his application that he “agrees
to accept the certificate subject to a period of validity which the Commission
may fix” and during his testimony he manifested his conformity to the limit up
to December 31, 1947, in another identical case, such commitments do not bind
petitioner to impugn a time limit which may appear to be arbitrary, unjust, or
unfounded.

In the same paragraph where the time limit up to December 31, 1947, is set,
the commission reserved upon itself the right to alter or modify the conditions
enumerated in the decision or to impose additional conditions in order to adjust
applicants’ operation to changing conditions and the eventual resumption of
operation under normal conditions, considering that the service applied for is
authorized during a state of emergency.

The reasons for the reserve made by the commission seem to support also the
time limit set in the decision. Undoubtedly, the certificate granted is
provisional in character. Being so, it is only logical that it be granted for a
short period.

According to petitioner’s testimony, he would use the following vehicles in
the service: a Dodge, model 1936, converted into a jitney with canvas covering;
a Buick, model 1936, converted into a jitney with wooden and canvas covering;
another Dodge, model 1938, also with canvas covering; a Ford truck, model 1935,
to be converted into a jitney, the motor of which was bought by petitioner from
a mechanic and the chassis and the wheels from another person. Petitioner bought
the vehicles in July, 1945. How they were used and for what purpose, he lacks
any knowledge.

Considering the age of the cars, the time limit granted by the commission
cannot be unreasonable. The cars have been in use years before the war. Their
long years of service and the fact that during the Japanese occupation there
were no adequate means for proper repairs are reasons enough to believe that the
cars cannot be of useful service for more than one year, taking into
consideration the heavy pounding they will receive in the continuous daily
public service in rough roads. Considering the rough handling which public
service cars receive from their drivers, the great majority of whom show
complete unconcern about traffic conditions, and are constantly violating
traffic rules, without any regard for public safety,—a thing upon which the
commission is urged to take preventive measures, in view of the extent of the
evil,—we might say that the time limit granted by the commission appears to be
even too long for the kind of second-hand cars used by petitioner.

Experience will show that such cars cannot be in continuous operation for
many days without costly repairs which are hard to face. No evidence or valid
reason has been advanced by petitioner to show that the commission acted
arbitrarily in limiting the time for his certificate up to December 31, 1947.
The evidence in record justifies an even shorter time limit than that granted.
The commission acted wisely in reserving to itself the right to modify the
conditions of the certificate granted. It is expected that the commission will
exercise such keen and proper supervision as to immediately stop the operation
of the service as soon as the vehicles used in same would endanger public
safety. This should be one of the main concerns in this case. Transportation
must be easy, cheap and above all safe. If vehicles are not in efficient
condition and in proper shape as to afford safe transportation their use should
immediately be stopped.

For all the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Public Service Commission
is affirmed.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Hilado, Bengzon, Padilla, and
Tuason, JJ., concur.
Feria, and Briones, JJ., concur in
the result.

---

PABLO, M.:

Disiento. En mi opinion, la sentencia de la Comision de Servicio Publico es
injusta e inconsistente al conceder al recurrente el irrisorio plazo de dos años
(hasta Diciembre 31, 1947) para operar su servicio de auto-truck para pasaje y
carga en las lineas Manila-Divisoria, San Juan-Divisoria, Montalban-Manila y
Navotas-Divisoria. El mejor argumento contra esta resolucion son sus
conclusiones de hecho que, copiadas literalmente, dicen asi:

“At the hearing applicant adduced evidence to prove that there is a public
need for the service applied for by him and that he is in a financial position
to undertake and carry on said service. Oppositors made no attempt to refute
applicant’s evidence regarding the need for the service but argued that as prior
operators they have acquired rights which the Commission is called upon to
protect even if at present they are not, or are only partially, rendering the
service called for in their certificates due to lack of equipment resulting from
the commandeering of their trucks or other causes attributable to the war.
Oppositors argued further that they claim for this protection of their rights in
preparation for the time when they might be able to acquire sufficient equipment
to resume a complete and total operation of their authorized services.

“As against this claim for protection of rights, however, we have the fact,
proven by applicant’s evidence and impliedly admitted by oppositors, that public
convenience and necessity demand the approval of this application. We believe
that where we have to choose between protecting rights which are alleged might
be impaired and promoting public interest and convenience, our choice must be
the latter. This is the more so where there is no immediate impairment of the
rights sought to be protected, considering that oppositors are rendering only a
small fraction of the service called for in their certificates and some of them
are not rendering any service at all. It is not our intention, however, to
disregard entirely oppositors’ right as a prior operator and it is for the
purpose of affording said rights certain measure of protection that this
application is approved subject to certain special conditions.

*             *             *             *             *       
     *             *

“For the foregoing reasons and finding from the evidence that public
necessity and convenience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by
the approval of this application, and that applicant is financially able to
maintain and operate the service applied for, the opposition filed herein are
hereby overruled, and it is ordered that, upon payment of the necessary fees, a
certificate of public convenience be issued to the applicant, * *
*.”

¿Si estos antiguos operadores no estaban en condicion de prestar el servicio
que necesitaba el publico, cuando todo era confusion, ruina y desolacion, por
que se limito a dos años (en vez de un plazo razonable dentro del cual se pueda
recuperar una legitima inversion) la validez del certificado de conveniencia
publica que se concedio al solicitante? ¿Por que razon no ha de tener igual
proteccion el recurrente que invirtio su capital, acaso hasta el ultimo centimo
de sus ahorros, para contribuir con sus esfuerzos para afrontar la crisis de
medios de transportacion? Si a los antiguos operadores se les concedio 25 años
de plazo para operar, ¿por que a los nuevos operadores, entre los cuales esta el
recurrente, que gustosos aportaron su pequeño capital para acelerar la solucion
del grave problema de transportacion, no se les ha de dar igual derecho? ¿Por
que ahogar a los pequeños y nuevos operadores para dar vida a los grandes
intereses? ¿Es para fomentar el monopolio opresivo y odioso de las grandes
empresas?

El punto cardinal que debe tener en cuenta la Comision es la solucion pronta
de la necesidad del publico de un servicio de transportacion seguro, barato y
eficiente. Hasta la fecha no hay exceso de vehiculos de pasaje y carga. Los
pasajeros viajan en trucks como sardinas en banasta. El coche de uso privado
esta solamente al alcance de los pocos mimados por la fortuna. La crisis de
transportacion persiste. Los precios, debido en parte a esta crisis, estan por
las nubes. La poblacion de Manila y pueblos limitrofes ha triplicado. La
afluencia migratoria hacia Manila desde las provincias, especialmente de las del
centro de Luzon continua. No hay peligro de que por unos cuantos auto-trucks
mas, puestos en el servicio de transportacion no vayan a tener pasajeros los
antiguos operadores cuando esten en condicion de poner en circulacion sus nuevos
coches.

La tendencia actual de los gobiernos es evitar la acumulacion de la riqueza
en pocas manos. La politica actual del Gobierno es adquirir los latifundios y
grandes parcelas residenciales para revenderlos en pequeños lotes. Cuando cada
familia tenga una huerta y un hogar que defender entonces cada hogar sera una
fortaleza y cada ciudadano sera un soldado, un centinela contra el avance del
Comunismo; pero si se fomenta la reconcentracion en pocas manos de la tierra,
del comercio y de la industria y el resto no sea mas que un simple peon que se
mueve al capricho del potentado, no se podra impedir que el curso de los
acontecimientos mundiales se precipite; no se podra impedir que las masas, hoy
amorfas, adquieran al fin suficiente consistencia e impongan por medio del
sufragio: socialicemos las grandes empresas de transportacion, socialicemos los
comercios en gran escala; socialicemos todo. Si se desea que el comunismo no
haga estragos, se debe fomentar la creacion de pequeñas empresas o empresas
individuales en el comercio, en la industria y en la agricultura y se formara
una clase media, fuerte, vigorosa, independiente y sana que no se dejara influir
ni por los halagos de la plutocracia, ni por las amenazas del comunismo. El
germen del comunismo, como todo germen morboso, esta en continuo asecho
esperando la hora propicia para comenzar su obra de destruccion, y en cuanto los
diferentes elementos sociales de nuestra economia nacional esten desorganizados
por el antagonismo y el odio de clase, el comunismo hara sus estragos
irremisiblemente. Armonicemos las actividades de todos esos elementos para la
pronta reconstruccion moral y material de la nacion, tratemos por igual a todos
sin sacrificar los intereses de los modestos operadores para el beneficio de los
grandes intereses creados. No debemos sembrar el descontento y el odio que
engendran las injusticias si no queremos cosechar tempestades.

Debemos fomentar la democracia economica. Debemos dar aliciente a los
pequeños operadores, concediendoles oportunidad para prestar sus servicios al
publico en el negocio de transportacion, tiempo razonable para poder recuperar
su capital invertido como lo tienen los antiguos operadores, oportunidad para
ganar su pan de cada dia, como tienen las grandes empresas oportunidad para
repartir pingues ganancias.

Que los coches usados por el recurrente como los otros pequeños operadores
son de segunda mano no es razon bastante para que se les prive—(en este caso,
limitar es privar)—del sano deseo de ejercer un negocio legitimo; porque cuando
sus coches sean inservibles se retiraran voluntariamente del servicio o los
sustituira con otros nuevos. No hay necesidad de limitar a dos años su
certificado de conveniencia publica; si por su diligencia pueden continuar
prestando servicio a satisfaccion del publico, con viejos coches o con otros
nuevos, ¿por que impedirles a ejercer un negocio legitimo y honrado? ¿Quiere la
Comision que despues del diciembre de este año, los nuevos operadores se
dediquen al contrabando? Que haya libre concurrencia, bajo regulaciones justas
de la Comision de Servicio Publico, en el negocio de transportacion; que los
emprendedores de buena voluntad, nuevos y antiguos, humildes y poderosos
operadores, aporten su contribucion en la medida de sus fuerzas, al pronto
restablecimiento de la transportacion segura, eficiente y barata para que, como
secuela necesaria, bajen los precios de los efectos de primera necesidad. Que
los antiguos operadores no imiten al perro del hortelano, en perjuicio del
servicio de transportacion.

Esos pequeños operadores que estan condenados a
muerte y cuya ejecucion tendra lugar el 31 de Diciembre de este año, tienen
derecho a sobrevivir como los grandes intereses, en justicia y equidad, Al
recurrente se le debe conceder un plazo de quince años para operar su negocio de
transportacion, si queremos administrar justicia por igual a todos.