G.R. No. 29927 , March 15, 1929
THE PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., applicant-appellee, vs. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On November 26, 1926, Inocencio M. Delgado applied to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate an autotruck service for freight and passengers on specified routes, including between Las Piñas and Divisoria Market. After publication and hearing, the PSC granted the application on January 11, 1927. Delgado operated the service until late December 1927, when he transferred the enterprise to the Pasay Transportation Company, which transfer was approved by the PSC on March 14, 1928. Subsequently, on March 30, 1928, Pasay Transportation filed a motion with the PSC seeking authority to operate a half-hour service (with a fifteen-minute service during heavy traffic) between F.B. Harrison St. in Pasay and Divisoria Market in Manila, specifying the streets to be traversed. The Manila Electric Company (Meralco), which operated the street-car service in Manila, opposed the motion. The PSC granted Pasay Transportation’s motion on May 25, 1928. Meralco filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on June 13, 1928, prompting Meralco to appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the PSC erred in granting the order of May 25, 1928, authorizing Pasay Transportation to operate the autotruck service between F.B. Harrison Street and Divisoria Market.
2. Whether the PSC erred in overruling Meralco’s motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the orders of the Public Service Commission.

1. On the Validity of the Original Certificate (Order of January 11, 1927): Meralco argued that the order for publication of Delgado’s original application did not state that he applied to transport freight or passengers between intermediate points, thus it did not raise an objection at that time. The Court rejected this contention. Delgado’s application was accompanied by complete schedules listing streets and fares for intermediate points, which were open to public inspection. The application itself was sufficient to put Meralco on notice, and its failure to inquire was negligence. The point was raised over a year after the certificate was issued, making it too late to seek its cancellation.

2. On the Order of May 25, 1928: The Court found no reversible error. The order did not change the original routes but related only to transportation rates and stopping places. The evidence did not show that the order would create unfair and unreasonable competition to an extent requiring judicial intervention. Under Section 35 of Act No. 3108 , the Supreme Court can only modify or set aside a PSC order if there is clearly no evidence to support it reasonably or if it was issued without jurisdiction. Neither condition was met here.

The orders appealed from were affirmed, with costs against Meralco.