PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,…

The Pampanga Bus Company (hereinafter
referred to as Pambusco), on July 16, 1963, filed
with the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission)
an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate a PUB service
on the Camiling, Tarlac-Cubao,
Quezon City line, proposing to use therefor thirty auto-trucks, at intervals of every thirty
minutes from five o’clock in the morning to five o’clock in the afternoon from
both termini.  Subsequently, on October 28, 1963, Pambusco filed an amended application altering the line
applied for from Camiling, Tarlac-Cubao,
Quezon
City to Baguio City-Cubao, Quezon
City, but without introducing amendments regard­ing
the proposed number of units and schedule of trips.

The Commission set the amended application for hearing on March 10, 1964.  However, on June 2, 1964, Pambusco filed a
second amended application amending the line applied for from Baguio City-Cubao, Quezon City to Baguio
City-Bonifacio Monument, Caloocan City,
with the same number of units and under the same time schedule originally
proposed.  The Commission set the second
amended application for hearing on July
8, 1964.  The Philippine
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Philippine Rabbit), on July 2, 1964, and the Pangasinan Trans­portation Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred
to as Pantranco) and the Dangwa
Transportation Co., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Dangwa),
on July 8, 1964, filed their
respective written op­positions to the second amended application.

On July 8, 1964,
Pambusco moved for the postponement of the scheduled
hearing which the Commission granted and re­set for September 7, 1964. 
On September 7, 1964,
Pambusco asked for another postponement of the
scheduled hearing.  The Commission granted
the same and re-set the hearing for September
16, 1964.

At the hearing on September
16, 1964, Pambusco merely presented proof
of publication and service of the pleadings to the affected operators.  Thereafter, Pambusco
asked for a fur­ther postponement of the proceedings.  The parties agreed to a continuance of the
hearing on October 26, 1964.

On October 26, 1964,
Pambusco presented its witness, Marcelo David of Baguio City,
who testified on the alleged public need for additional bus service on the Baguio City-Manila run. 
After the witness’ direct testimony, the Commission, due to lack of
material time, and upon agreement of the parties, adjourned the proceedings,
and re-scheduled the hearing for December 10 and 11, 1964.  On November
3, 1964, however, Pambusco moved for the
cancellation of the hearing scheduled for December 10.  The Commission, acting upon the motion,
re-set the case for further proceedings on December 11, 1964, as previously
sche­duled, and on January 5 and 6, 1965.

At the hearing on December 11, the Commission suggested that, for
the benefit of the parties, a “check” be conducted by its inspectors
for a period of thirty days at a point along the Kennon Road in order to
determine the volume of passenger traffic on the Baguio
City-Bonifacio Monument line.  The parties accepted the suggestion, and the
inspectors of the Commission conducted an actual check covering the period from
December 31, 1964 to January 29, 1965.  Pending the completion and submission of the
ins­pectors’ report, the parties agreed to the suspension of the proceedings.

On March 23, 1965,
Pambusco filed with the Commission an application for
a provisional permit to operate a PUB service “between Baguio and Bonifacio Monument
and intermediate points and vice-versa.”

On April 27, 1965, the Commission promulgated Order No. 2, Series
of 1965, imposing a moratorium on the grant of new certificates of public
convenience either for new or additional PUB or PUJ services along the national
highway in northern, central and southern Luzon because of the numerous
transportation units already authorized on the lines therein.  On the same day, Pambusco
filed a supplemental application for a provisional permit.

The Commission, thereafter, re-set the main application for
hearing on July 12 and 16, 1965.

On June 25, 1965,
Philippine Rabbit filed with the Commission a motion for the suspension of the
proceedings re Pambusco’s parent application.  Philippine Rabbit invoked as ground therefor that Pambusco’s
application fell within the scope of Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1965.

At the hearing on July
12, 1965, the oppositors, Philippine
Rabbit, Pantranco and Dangwa,
learned that Pambusco filed with the Commission an
application and supplemental application for a provisional permit.  Not having been furnished copies of the same,
the oppositors made a manifestation that no action be taken on the application until copies thereof shall have
been furnished them and opportunity granted to them to oppose the said
application.  At the same hearing,
counsel for Philippine Rabbit cross-examined Pambusco’s
witness.  For lack of material time, the
Commission postponed the cross-examination of the witness by counsel for Dangwa to July 16,
1965.

At the same hearing, the Commission suggested that another
“check” of the volume of passenger traffic on the proposed line be
conducted for another period of thirty days but at a different point along the
route.  Accordingly, the inspectors of
the Commission conducted the check at a point at Carmen, Pangasinan.  Whereupon, the parties
agreed to hold the hearing in abeyance until after the submission of the results
of the second check scheduled for the month of August.

Barely a few days after the completion of the check conducted at
Carmen, Pangasinan, the
Commission issued an order granting Pambusco a
provisional permit to operate a PUB service not on the Baguio
City-Bonifacio Monument run but on the Baguio City-San Fernando, Pampanga
run.  The oppositors
received copies of the order dated September
3, 1965 on September 23,
1965.

On September 29, 1965,
the oppositors filed the instant petition for certiorari, alleging
abuse of discretion on the part of the Commission in issuing the order granting
to Pambusco the provisional permit.  The oppositors, in
their petition, also asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
to res­train Pambusco from carrying out in any manner
the order of September 3, 1965, which this Court granted in an order dated October
7, 1965.

Sometime in 1966, Pambusco filed with
the Commission an application to amend its certificate of public convenience so
as to extend its Cubao, Quezon
City-San Fernando, Pampanga line to include the San
Fernando, Pampanga-Baguio City
run.  Philippine Rabbit, Pantranco and Dangwa opposed the
same.  How­ever, after proceedings duly
had on the application, the Commis­sion rendered its decision, dated October 30, 1969, authorizing Pambusco to operate ten (10) auto-trucks on the Cubao, Quezon City-Baguio City route.

On November 18, 1969,
Philippine Rabbit filed with the Commission a motion for reconsideration of its
decision of Octo­ber 30, 1969,
which motion was however subsequently withdrawn on May 29, 1970.

On December 4, 1970, this Court, in a resolution dated December
3, 1970, required the petitioners and the respondent to show cause why the
questions raised by the petition at bar should not be considered moot and
academic, it appearing that Pambusco at present
operates a PUB service on the Cubao, Que­zon City-Baguio City line,
thereby frustrating the ultimate re­lief sought by the petitioners in filing
the present petition – to restrain Pambusco from
operating passenger and freight service from metropolitan Manila to Baguio City.

Among the petitioners, only Philippine Rabbit complied with this
Court’s resolution by filing its manifestation opposing the dismissal of the
petition.  Philippine Rabbit expresses
the fear that should the petition be dismissed, said dismissal would “in
effect, revive the provisional authority” granted to Pambusco
to operate fourteen (14) auto-trucks on the San Fernando, Pampanga-Baguio
City line.  This would, according to
Philippine Rabbit, gravely prejudice its interest and rights because aside from
being allowed to operate ten (10) units on the Cubao,
Quezon City-Baguio City
line under the authority granted in the Commission’s decision of October 30,
1969, Pambusco would further be authorized to operate
another fourteen units on the San Fernando, Pampanga-Baguio
City route.

Any correction of the
errors allegedly committed by the Commission in issuing the order
complained of granting to Pam­busco provisional
authority to operate on the San Fernando,
Pampanga-Baguio
City line, would have no practical
value and effect.  Any judgment – either
in favor of the petitioners and against the respondent or in favor of the
respondent and against the petitioners – would not result in any material
advantage to either of the parties.  Two
considerations render any decision resolving the questions framed for
resolution by this Court un­necessary and purposeless.

1.  Philippine Rabbit overlooks
the fact that the Commission laid down certain conditions in the order
complained of dated September 3, 1965
granting to Pambusco the provisional permit applied
for.  One of these conditions is that

“6. The
provisional permit herein granted may be modified or revoked by the Commission
at any time, shall be subject to whatever action that may be taken on the basic
application, and shall be valid only for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS from date hereto.” (emphasis supplied.)

Philippine Rabbit, therefore, need not
fear that the dismissal of the petition at bar would revive and render
effective the provi­sional permit for the same has, by the mere lapse of time,
expired and ceased to be valid.

2.  Philippine Rabbit also loses
sight of the fact that Pambusco at present operates a
PUB service on the Cubao, Quezon City-Baguio City
line by virtue of the Commission’s decision dated October 30, 1969, amending Pambusco’s
certificate of public convenience extending its Cubao,
Quezon City-San Fernando, Pampanga
line to include the San Fernando, Pampanga-Baguio City
run.  It is easily perceivable that this
defeats the very purpose for which the petitioners sought to enjoin Pambusco from complying with the order granting the latter
the provisional permit to operate on the San Fernando,
Pampanga-Baguio
City line – the same line involved and referred to in the Commission’s decision of October 30, 1969.

In view of these considerations,
this Court sees no need to articulate an extended opinion on the merits
of the petition at bar for the same
would have no practical significance.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby dismissed.  No
pronouncements as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.