Pantranco Vs PSC

PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION G.R. No.
47065 June
26, 1940
FACTS: Pangasinan Transportation Company Inc. (PTI) has been engaged for 20 years in the business of
transporting passengers in Pangasinan, Tarlac and Nueva Ecija through TPU buses in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the certificates of public convenience issued by the Public Utility
Commission (later called Public Service Commission). The company applied for an authorization to
operate ten additional Brockway trucks on the ground that they were needed to comply with the terms
and conditions of its existing certificates and as a result of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law.
PSC agreed to grant the authorization, but with two conditions as provided for by section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 454: First, that the certificates of authorization issued to it would be valid only
for a period of 25 years counted from the date of promulgation; and second, that the company may be
acquired by the Philippine Commonwealth with proper payment of the cost price of its equipment,
taking into account reasonable depreciation to be fixed by the Commission at the time of it acquisition.
PTI did not agree with the conditions, and instead asked the Supreme Court to declare Commonwealth
Act No. 454.
ISSUE: Whether or not Commonwealth Act No. 454 is unconstitutional for being undue delegation of
legislative power on the ground that without limitation, guide or rule except the unfettered discretion
and judgment of the Commission, constitute a complete and total abdication by the Legislature of its
functions in the premises, and for that reason, the Act, in so far as those powers are concerned.
HELD: No, the law is not unconstitutional. The law is made subject to a sufficient standard that the PSC
must strictly follow. Inasmuch as the period to be fixed by the Commission under section 15 is
inseparable from the certificate itself, said period cannot be disregarded by the Commission in
determining the question whether the issuance of the certificate will promote the public interests in a
proper and suitable manner. Conversely, in determining "a definite period of time," the Commission will
be guided by "public interests," the only limitation to its power being that said period shall not exceed
fifty years (sec. 16 (a), Commonwealth Act No. 146; Constitution, Art. XIII, sec. 8.) The Supreme Court
had earlier ruled that "public interest" furnishes a sufficient standard.
the Constitution of the Philippines provided, in section 8 of Article XIII, that "no franchise or right shall
be granted to any individual, firm, or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires." The
National Assembly, by virtue of the Constitution, logically succeeded to the Congress of the United
States in the power to amend, alter or repeal any franchise or right granted prior to or after the
approval of the Constitution; and when Commonwealth Acts Nos. 146 and 454 were enacted, the
National Assembly, to the extent therein provided, has declared its will and purpose to amend or alter
existing certificates of public convenience.
Upon the other hand, statutes enacted for the regulation of public utilities, being a proper exercise by
the state of its police power, are applicable not only to those public utilities coming into existence after
its passage, but likewise to those already established and in operation.
Notes:
no public service shall operate in the Philippines without possessing a valid and subsisting certificate
from the Public Service Commission, known as "certificate of public convenience," or "certificate of
convenience and public necessity,"
Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides, among other things, that no franchise,
certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be "for a longer
period than fifty years,"
section 6 of Article XII, which provides that "the State may, in the interest of national welfare and
defense, establish and operate industries and means of transportation and communication, and,
upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private
enterprises to be operated by the Government. "
The business of a common carrier holds such a peculiar relation to the public interest that there is
superinduced upon it the right of public regulation.

Pantranco Vs PSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pantranco Vs PSC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pantranco Vs PSC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION G.R. No.

You might also like