MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This is a petition of the Manila Electric Company for the review of an
order of the Public Service Commission in case No. 13598, dated April
26, 1932.

The petitioner and appellant makes the following assignments of error:

“I.
The Public Service Commission erred in holding that the suspension of
the operation of auto-trucks on calles Zamora and S. Vitan by the Pasay
Transportation Co. was only temporary.

“II. The Public
Service Commission erred in declaring that the lines on which operation
was suspended are only a small portion of the territory comprised in
the certificate of public convenience granted to the Pasay
Transportation Co.

“III. The Public Service Commission
erred in ruling that the Pasay Transportation Co. has acquired prior
rights to operate over S. Vitan, Apelo Cruz and Zamora Streets.

“IV. The Public Service Commission erred in finding that the
abandonment of operation on Culi-Culi, Zamora, Apelo Cruz and S. Vitan
streets by the Pasay Transportation Co. is not a sufficient cause for
revocation and cancellation of the certificate held by the Pasay
Transportation Co. covering said streets.

“V. The Public
Service Commission erred in denying and dismissing the petition of the
Manila Electric Company for revocation and cancellation of the
certificate of the Pasay Transportation Co. for the operation of its
auto-trucks over Culi-Culi, Zamora, Apelo Cruz and S. Vitan streets
(Appendix A).

“VI. The Public Service Commission erred in
overruling the motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the
said petition of the Manila Electric Company (Appendix B).

“VII. The Public Service Commission has abused its discretion in the
findings made in its order of April 26, 1932 (Appendix A), and
resolution of June 14, 1932 (Appendix B).”

On October 15, 1927 the Pasay Transportation Co. filed with the Public
Service Commission in case No. 13598 an application that its lines be
extended as follows:

“1. That the Pasay end
be extended from Harrison corner Libertad through Libertad, Zamora,
Apelo Cruz, S. Vitan corner F. B. Harrison;

“2. That another extension from Pasay and to Culi-Culi through “Libertad be permitted;

“3. That the line starting from Dominga be continued to Zamora and Apelo Cruz—S. Vitan to Harrison.”

On October 17, 1927 the Public Service Commission granted the application, effective October 19, 1927.

On January 23, 1928 Antonio Garrido wrote a letter to the Public
Service Commissioner requesting permission to suspend temporarily the
operation of his auto-truck service along Dominga and Apelo Cruz
streets until said streets should be repaired, and on January 25, 1928
the permission requested was granted by the commission.

On
March 29, 1932 the Manila Electric Company, the petitioner and
appellant herein, filed with the Public Service Commission a petition
for the revocation and cancellation of the certificate of public
convenience issued in case No. 13598, with respect to the above
mentioned extensions on the ground that the said lines had never been
operated and had entirely been abandoned by the Pasay Transportation
Co.; that due to such abandonment the certificate for said lines had
become ineffective and void, and the rights of the Pasay Transportation
Co. thereunder had been forfeited.

On April 4, 1932 the
Pasay Transportation Co. filed an opposition to said petition, alleging
among other things that the following portions of the lines in question
were being operated: From F. B. Harrison, corner of S. Vitan, as this
zone was included in the Cavite-Manila line and intermediate points
served by the respondent in accordance with case No. 22523; and from F.
B. Harrison, corner of Libertad, to Calle Dominga inclusive, because it
was a part of the respondent’s line, F. B. Harrison-Divisoria Market
and intermediate points, in accordance with case No. 13567; that the
operation on the remaining portions of the lines in question was
temporarily suspended with the permission of the commission (Exhibits 1
and 2); that the operation on the lines under the certificate of public
convenience, the cancellation of which was asked by the petitioner,
required a rearrangement of routes, for which purpose the respondent
had filed an application in cases Nos. 28453 and 28375, which was
pending the continuation of the trial; that the respondent had no
intention of abandoning the lines described in the petition of the
Manila Electric Company, and was only awaiting the rearrangement of the
routes which the public convenience required, as applied for in cases
Nos. 28453 and 28375; that the Manila Electric Company was not an
operator on the lines which were the object of its petition for
cancellation, and therefore not an interested party.

On
April 6, 1932 the petitioner filed its answer to respondents’s
opposition, stating therein that it was true that parts of the lines
described in the petition were actually being operated by the Pasay
Transportation Co., and that it asked for the cancellation of only
those lines not then being operated and which had not been operated for
over four years, namely: Zamora, Apelo Cruz, and S. Vitan streets, and
Libertad to Culi-Culi; that the reason why the Manila Electric Company
asked for the cancellation of the certificate of the Pasay
Transportation Co. on Zamora, Apelo Cruz, and S. Vitan streets was
because during the period of four years while the Pasay Transportation
Co. was not operating on said streets the Manila Electric Company
obtained a certificate to operate and is actually operating on S. Vitan
and Taft Avenue Extension immediately adjacent to Calle Zamora, and
that after the Manila Electric Company had established its operation,
it would not be just or fair to permit the Pasay Transportation Co. to
resume operation on the route, which it had abandoned over four years
ago, in competition with the Manila Electric Company, which had
developed the business in that territory; that the letter of January
25, 1928 (Exhibit 1) gave the Pasay Transportation Co. permission to
suspend the service on Dominga and Apelo Cruz streets only while these
streets were being repaired, but that the repairs were completed many
years ago, and that in fact the Manila Electric Company has been
operating on S. Vitan since September, 1931. The petitioner asked that
the certificate covering the lines not operated by the Pasay
Transportation Co. for over four years on Zamora, Apelo Cruz, and S.
Vitan streets, and Libertad to Culi-Culi be revoked and cancelled.

The petition was called up for hearing on April 4, 1932. No testimony
was taken or any other evidence presented at that time. On April 26,
1932 the Public Service Commission denied the petition on the ground
that the facts did not warrant the cancellation of the respondent’s
certificate, because the respondent was forced by circumstances to
suspend temporarily its operation on the lines in question, and it had
applied for and secured a permit to suspend its operation.

On May 25, 1932 the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, to which the respondent filed an opposition.

The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was heard on June 11, 1932.
After a statement had been made by the attorney for the petitioner, the
following occurred:

“JUEZ. ¿Se pidio por V. entonces la presentacion de sus testigos y lo hemos denegado?

“Sr. CABRERA. No, señor, pero recuerdo que esta Comision dispuso que
presentaramos memorandums.” This was followed by extended statements of
counsel. No evidence was presented in support of the motion for
reconsideration.

The appellant is therefore
asking us to set aside an order of the Public Service Commission
denying the appellant’s petition in case No. 13598, in support of which
no evidence whatever was presented. No agreed statement of facts was
submitted, and the contentions of the parties were in many respects
conflicting. Whereas the petitioner maintained that the respondent had
abandoned operation on the routes mentioned in its petition, as amended
by its answer to the opposition, the respondent maintained that the
only part of its route not operated was a small portion of Apelo Cruz
street. The record shows that on January 25, 1928 the commission
granted the request of Antonio Garrido to suspend temporarily the
operation of his service on Dominga and Apelo Cruz streets until those
streets should be repaired.

Under the circumstances, and
taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner did not present
any evidence in support of its petition in case No. 13598, we are
constrained to affirm the order in question. It is true, nevertheless,
that the Public Service Commission apparently misconceived the object
of the petition, which was not for the cancellation of the respondent’s
certificate as to the whole route, but only as to the extensions in
question. The commission ought to insist upon compliance with the terms
of the certificates of public convenience and its orders, and when it
authorizes a suspension of operation for cause, it should be for a
definite period, and upon the expiration of that period the commission
ought to require the operator to show cause why he failed to comply
with its order. The public convenience is the primary consideration for
which a certificate is issued, and that fact should be kept constantly
in mind. An operator should be required to furnish the service which he
has undertaken to render.

For the foregoing reasons, the order appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.

Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, and Imperial, JJ., concur.