G.R. No. L-9088; April 28, 1956
ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On January 15, 1954, respondent Artemio G. Barron applied with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate an exclusive ferry service between Calapan, Oriental Mindoro and Batangas, Batangas, and via Lobo, Batangas. Petitioners Elpidio Javellana, Marcelo Cruz, and Januario Jalandoni, who were existing motorboat service operators on the same lines, filed a motion to dismiss the application, contending that the service was not a ferry service but constituted coastwise trade, over which the PSC allegedly lacked jurisdiction to require a certificate. The PSC denied the motion and proceeded with the hearing. On September 17, 1954, Barron petitioned for a provisional permit, which the PSC granted on February 9, 1955, authorizing him to operate the service using motor vessels “R. O. Barron I” and “R. O. Barron II,” and later, on February 23, 1955, also allowed the operation of the motor vessel “Batangas Liner.” The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on April 11, 1955. The undisputed facts show that the distance between Calapan and Batangas is 24 nautical miles (44.47 kilometers), traversable in two to three hours over Mindoro Bay, Verde Islands Passage, and Batangas Bay. The vessels involved have substantial gross tonnages (244.61, 248.47, and 70 tons). The PSC, in granting the provisional permit, reasoned that a ferry service is not confined to small boats but includes vessels well-adapted to the conditions for safety and convenience.

ISSUE

Whether the motorboat service between Calapan, Oriental Mindoro and Batangas, Batangas, constitutes a ferry service under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission, requiring a certificate of public convenience, or whether it constitutes interisland or coastwise trade.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the motorboat service between Calapan and Batangas constitutes interisland and coastwise trade, not a ferry service. The Court, citing definitions from American jurisprudence, held that a ferry implies the continuation of a highway over interrupting waters for a short distance, typically between two points, and is unrelated to other transportation. Given the distance of 24 nautical miles over open and sometimes dangerous waters, and the use of motor vessels of considerable tonnage, the service does not qualify as a ferry. Consequently, the Public Service Commission has no authority to require operators of such service to obtain a certificate of public convenience or to prescribe their routes. However, under the amended Public Service Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 146 , as amended by Commonwealth Act 454), the Commission retains jurisdiction to prescribe the schedule of trips and passenger and freight rates for such coastwise trade to regulate competition and ensure public interest. The orders of the Commission granting the provisional permit are declared null and void, and the parties are reverted to their status prior to the application. No costs.