0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
279 vues1 page
Pangasinan transportation company applied for an authorization to operate ten additional Brockway trucks. Company said trucks were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates. PSC agreed to grant the authorization, but with two conditions. PTI asked The Supreme Court to declare Commonwealth Act No. 454 unconstitutional.
Pangasinan transportation company applied for an authorization to operate ten additional Brockway trucks. Company said trucks were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates. PSC agreed to grant the authorization, but with two conditions. PTI asked The Supreme Court to declare Commonwealth Act No. 454 unconstitutional.
Pangasinan transportation company applied for an authorization to operate ten additional Brockway trucks. Company said trucks were needed to comply with the terms and conditions of its existing certificates. PSC agreed to grant the authorization, but with two conditions. PTI asked The Supreme Court to declare Commonwealth Act No. 454 unconstitutional.
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.