MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The defendant, Pasay Transportation Company, appeals to this court from
a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the dispositive
part of which reads:

“For the foregoing considerations, the court hereby renders judgment and

“(1)
Orders the defendant company to pay to the plaintiff the total sum of
two thousand seven hundred sixty-six pesos and eighty centavos
(P2,766.80), with interest at six per centum (6%) per annum from the
date of the filing of the complaint, August 14, 1934, until fully paid;

“(2) Orders the defendant company to render an accounting to the
plaintiff company, within thirty days from the date this decision
should become final, of the number of times the trucks of the defendant
company passed over the bridge of the plaintiff company from August,
1934, and after the rendition of such accounting, to pay the plaintiff
company a compensation equivalent to forty centavos (P0.40) for each
time the trucks of the defendant company passed over the bridge of the
plaintiff company, until the date of the rendition of accounts;

“(3) Orders the defendant company to pay to the plaintiff company the
sum of forty centavos (P0.40) for each time the trucks of the former
should pass over the bridge of the latter in the future, after the
rendition of accounts;

“(4) Prohibits the defendant
company, its manager, agents, representatives, and employees
henceforward from making the trucks of the defendant company pass over
the bridge of the plaintiff company referred to in the complaint,
unless they pay to the latter the sum of forty centavos (P0.40) for
each time that its trucks should pass over the bridge or should reach
an agreement on the matter with the plaintiff company; and

“(5) Orders the defendant company to pay the costs.

“The
provincial sheriff of Rizal is hereby ordered to serve a copy of this
decision on the manager of the defendant company. So ordered.”

In support of its appeal, the appellant assigns four errors allegedly
committed by the trial court in its aforesaid decision, which alleged
errors will be discussed in the course of this decision.

At
the opening of the trial of the case, the parties submitted to the
court for its decision the following stipulation of facts:

“The parties hereto agree to stipulate as follows:

“I. That the allegations contained in paragraphs I, II, III, and IV of the complaint are true and correct.

“II. That the said franchise has, with the consent of the
Governor-General and the municipal authorities of the City of Manila,
of the municipality of Pasig, and of the municipality of Makati, been
assigned and transferred to plaintiff, who has been the lawful holder
thereof, entitled to all of the rights and privileges granted
thereunder, at all times material to this action.

“III.
That said Manila Suburban Railways Company did construct at its own
expense, a bridge over the Pasig River as provided in section one of
the said franchise; that the said bridge has at all times up to 1932,
been maintained jointly as in the franchise provided by the
municipality of Pasig and the respective holders of the franchise, and
as since 1932 been maintained jointly as in the franchise provided by
the Province of Rizal and plaintiff; and that plaintiff, and its
predecessors have acquired at their own expense, and own, the land
right of way on which the said bridge is constructed. The parties may
submit further evidence on the points covered by this paragraph and
defendant reserves the right to verify plaintiffs title to the land.
(That Exhibit 1 is a statement or expenditure incurred by the Province
of Rizal in the repair and maintenance of the bridge in question from
April 6, 1932 to June 22, 1932, as aforesaid.)

“IV. That
the defendant commenced operating a motor bus route for the
transportation of passengers between the City of Manila and the
municipality of Pasig over the aforesaid bridge, under the certificate
of public convenience (Public Service Commission case No. 18081 and
case No. 18085), in February, 1929; that plaintiff has at all times
protested against the granting of the said certificates of public
convenience and against the operation of defendant thereunder. The
respective records of the Public Service Commission are incorporated
herein by reference.

“V. That on June 29, 1932, the
plaintiff petitioned the justices of the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands requesting that they Bit as a board of arbitrators
as provided in section 11 of said franchise, and determine the terms on
which defendant and other operators of motor bus routes could use the
said bridge; that opposition to the granting of this petition was filed
by defendant and other operators of motor bus routes; that on November
25, 1932, the Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition, and on
December 13, 1932, denied plaintiffs motion for reconsideration; that
plaintiff filed notice or its intention to take a petition of
certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States; that on the 31st
day of March, 1933, the clerk of the Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands certified the printed transcript of record, and that plaintiff
has presented no petition in the Supreme Court of the United States as
aforesaid, the time for filing the said petition having expired on
September 30, 1933.

“VI. That on the 29th day of May,
1934, plaintiff sent to defendant the letter attached hereto as Exhibit
2, which defendant answered by the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
That checkers employed by plaintiff, if called, would testify that the
period from the first day of June, 1934, to the 31st day of July, 1934,
motor busses operated by defendant under the aforesaid certificates of
public convenience made the number of trips over the aforesaid bridge
set forth in the following table:

1.		During the month of June …………………………………..	3464
2.		During the month of July ……………………………………	3453

“Defendant reserves the right to verify the number of trips made as aforesaid.

“VII.
That on the 6th day of July, 1934, plaintiff sent to defendant the
bill, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4; that on or about
the 14th day of August, 1934, plaintiff sent to defendant the bill, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5; and that defendant does
refuse, and at all times has refused, to pay the said bills.

“VIII.
That Felix Reifschneider and L. L. Gardner, witnesses for plaintiff,
would, if called, testify from their personal knowledge that the rate
of toll of forty centavos per trip was arrived at on the basis of the
computations set forth in the table attached hereto as Exhibit 6, and
that the figures from which the said computations are made are true and
correct; without prejudice to the contention of defendant that no toll
is chargeable, to defendants contending that after refusal of the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands to sit as arbitrators according
to the provisions of section 11 of the said franchise, no other person
or entity is allowed by law to fix the terms on which the said bridge
can be used; and to defendant’s contention that the said tolls are
unreasonable and against public interest.

“IX. That eleven other operators besides defendant use the said bridge.

“X. That Exhibits 7 and 8 are pictures of the aforesaid bridge. The ‘X’
on Exhibit 7 marks the portion of the said bridge used by defendant, by
other bus lines, from time to time at irregular intervals by charter
busses of plaintiff, operated under a permit of the Public Service
Commission (cases Nos. 17280 and 17400) and by the general public, that
plaintiff has, on February 25, 1933, applied for a certificate of
public convenience to operate a bus lines over the portion of the said
bridge marked by an ‘A’ on Exhibit 7 (case No. 35524) the said
application not having been acted on up to this time, and that the ‘Z’
on Exhibit 7 marks the portion of the said bridge used by street cars
operated by plaintiff. That the parties may prepare and attach to this
record such portions of the record of the Public Service Commission,
also such records of the Supreme Court in connection with G. R. No.
37878, In re Petition to have the Honorable Supreme Court sit as Board
of Arbitrators for the purpose of fixing compensation as claimed by the
Manila Electric Company for the use of the public portion of the
bridge, as they shall deem proper.

“XI. This stipulation
is equally the work of both parties and shall be interpreted so as to
give effect to the intention of the parties that this case shall be
decided solely upon the points of law involved.

“Manila, P. I., February 1935.”

The principal question to be determined, in view of the aforequoted
statement of facts, is whether or not by virtue of the franchise
granted to Charles M. Swift on January 30, 1906 by Act No. 1446 of the
Philippine Commission, and transferred to the herein plaintiff and
appellee, Manila Electric Company, the latter has a right to collect
tolls from the herein defendant and appellant, Pasay Transportation
Company, every time its cars pass over the bridge which said grantee
has constructed across the Pasig River pursuant to the aforesaid
franchise.

Sections 1 and 11 of the aforesaid franchise Act No. 1446 provide as follows:

“Section
1. A franchise is hereby granted to Charles M. Swift to construct,
maintain, and operate an electric railroad, either double or single
track (with the exceptions hereinafter set forth), with the necessary
sidings and turnouts, and to construct, maintain, and operate an
electric light, heat, and power system along the line of said railroad
and on all the streets and thoroughfares in the town of Pasig, which
railroad shall begin at any point along Calle Real, Paco, Manila,
between Calle Nozaleda and the San Pedro Macati Road, thence along the
San Pedro Macati Road to a point opposite what is known as the English
cemetery, and thence in an easterly direction, by private right of way,
or license, to be acquired by the grantee, to the town of Pasig, in the
Province of Rizal, and to such point in said town as may be agreed upon
between the municipal authorities of Pasig and the grantee, and
approved by the provincial board of the province, or, in case of
failure to agree, then to such terminal point as may be determined upon
by the Philippine Commission, crossing the Pasig River at or near the
present Pasig ferry on a steel bridge to be constructed by the grantee
in accordance with plans to be approved by the Director of Public
Works; or on a private right of way the entire route, beginning at any
point on the line of the road of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light
Company on Calle Real, Paco, between Calle Nozaleda and the San Pedro
Macati road and running in an easterly direction, crossing the Pasig
River at the point and in the manner above provided, or, at the
election of the said grantee, on a private right of way the entire
route, beginning at any point on the Malate line of the Manila Electric
Railroad and Light Company south of the bridge across the estero at
Fort San Antonio de Abad, and running in an easterly direction, across
the Pasig River at the point and in the manner above provided, with the
privilege in any case of connecting the said road with the present line
of the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company: Provided,
That the bridge across the Pasig River above authorized shall be so
constructed as to permit of its use as a wagon and foot bridge by the
general public, and the general public shall be entitled to use said
bridge as though the same were a public bridge without the payment of
any fee or toll for said use. The grantee shall construct the bridge
complete for his use and for the use of the public as above provided
and shall thereafter keep in good and safe repair that portion of the
bridge between the outer rail and the side of the bridge, that portion
between the rails, and that portion eighteen inches outside the inner
rail. The remainder of the floor of the bridge shall be kept in repair
by the municipality of Pasig.

* * * * * * *

“SEC.
11. Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any other
person or corporation, now or hereafter in existence, over portions of
the lines and tracks of the grantee herein, the terms on which said
other person or corporation shall use such right of way, and the
compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such other person or
corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the members of the Supreme
Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of
whom shall be final.”

It is seen from the
provisions of section 1 of the franchise Act No. 1446, above quoted,
that Charles M. Swift was authorized, as part of his franchise, to
construct across the Pasig River, at or near the ferry then existing, a
steel bridge, with plans to be approved by the Director of Public
Works, in such a way that a portion thereof may be used by the public
in general, as a wagon and foot bridge, as though the same were a
public bridge, without paying fees of any kind, the grantee being
chargeable with keeping in good and safe repair the part of the said
bridge between the outer rail and the side of the bridge, that portion
between the rails, and that portion .eighteen inches outside the inner
rail, and the municipality of Pasig shall keep in repair the remainder
of the floor of the said bridge. Pursuant to section 11, also above
quoted, the grantee may charge compensation when any privilege or right
of way is granted to any other person or corporation to make use of a
part of the lines or tracks of the grantee.

It is not
contended that the Pasay Transportation Company had obtained any
privilege or right of way to make use of a part of the lines or tracks
of the plaintiff, nor that its trucks pass over said lines or tracks;
consequently the latter cannot invoke its franchise to collect tolls
from the defendant for the said trucks which pass over the aforesaid
bridge in the portion set apart for the public in general. The right to
collect tolls from the public for passing over a public bridge exists
only by virtue of law (9 Corpus Juris, page 447, sec. 33); so that the
portion of the bridge here in question, set apart for the use of the
general public, for wagons and travellers, who are not under a duty to
pay fees of any kind, partakes of a public nature as provided by the
franchise Act No. 1446 itself, which the plaintiff and appellee, Manila
Electric Company, invokes, wherefore, it has no right to collect tolls
from the defendant and appellant, Pasay Transportation Company, for the
passage by its passenger trucks over the said portion set apart for
public use and which the municipality of Pasig is under a duty to
maintain in good shape and repair, inasmuch as, as we have said, its
franchise does not authorize such collection.

For the
foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the
possessor of a franchise granted by law, to construct a bridge as a
part of its electric railway system, a portion of which is set apart
for its own use and the other portion for the use of the general
public, for wagons and travellers, free from the payment of fees of any
kind, the grantee being charged with the conservation and repair of the
first portion, and the municipality where the bridge is constructed
being charged with the conservation and repair of the floor of the
other portion, has no right to collect any toll from a land
transportation operator for the passage of its passenger trucks, unless
it is authorized by its franchise to make such collection.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed, and the defendant and
appellant, Pasay Transportation Company, is absolved from the
complaint, with the costs to the appellee. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.