Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Rural Transit
Red Line Transportation Co. vs. Rural Transit Co.
GR No. 41570 | Sept. 6, 1934
Facts:
This is a petition for review of an order of the Public Service Commission granting
to the Rural Transit Company, Ltd., a certificate of public convenience to operate a
transportation service between Ilagan in the Province of Isabela and Tuguegarao in
the Province of Cagayan, and additional trips in its existing express service between
Manila Tuguegarao.
On June 4, 1932, Rural Transit filed an application for certification of a new
service between Tuguegarao and Ilagan with the Public Company Service
Commission (PSC), since the present service is not sufficient
Rural Transit further stated that it is a holder of a certificate of public
convenience to operate a passenger bus service between Manila and Tuguegarao
Red Line opposed said application, arguing that they already hold a certificate of
public convenience for Tuguegarao and Ilagan, and is rendering adequate service.
They also argued that granting Rural Transits application would constitute a ruinous
competition over said route
On Dec. 21, 1932, Public Service Commission approved Rural Transits
application, with the condition that "all the other terms and conditions of the various
certificates of public convenience of the herein applicant and herein incorporated
are made a part hereof."
A motion for rehearing and reconsideration was filed by Red Line since Rural
Transit has a pending application before the Court of First Instance for voluntary
dissolution of the corporation
A motion for postponement was filed by Rural Transit as verified by M. Olsen who
swears "that he was the secretary of the Rural Transit Company, Ltd
During the hearing before the Public Service Commission, the petition for
dissolution and the CFIs decision decreeing the dissolution of Rural Transit were
admitted without objection
At the trial of this case before the Public Service Commission an issue was raised
as to who was the real party in interest making the application, whether the Rural
Transit Company, Ltd., as appeared on the face of the application, or the Bachrach
Motor Company, Inc., using name of the Rural Transit Company, Ltd., as a trade
name
However, PSC granted Rural Transits application for certificate of public
convenience and ordered that a certificate be issued on its name
PSC relied on a Resolution in case No. 23217, authorizing Bachrach Motor to
continue using Rural Transits name as its tradename in all its applications and
petitions to be filed before the PSC. Said resolution was given a retroactive effect as
of the date of filing of the application or April 30, 1930
Issue: Can the Public Service Commission authorize a corporation to assume the
name of another corporation as a trade name?
Ruling: NO
The Rural Transit Company, Ltd., and the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., are Philippine
corporations and the very law of their creation and continued existence requires
each to adopt and certify a distinctive name
The incorporators "constitute a body politic and corporate under the name
stated in the certificate."
A corporation has the power "of succession by its corporate name." It is essential
to its existence and cannot change its name except in the manner provided by the
statute. By that name alone is it authorized to transact business.
The law gives a corporation no express or implied authority to assume another
name that is unappropriated: still less that of another corporation, which is
expressly set apart for it and protected by the law. If any corporation could assume
at pleasure as an unregistered trade name the name of another corporation, this
practice would result in confusion and open the door to frauds and evasions and
difficulties of administration and supervision.
In this case, the order of the commission authorizing the Bachrach Motor Co.,
Incorporated, to assume the name of the Rural Transit Co., Ltd. likewise
incorporated, as its trade name being void. Accepting the order of December 21,
1932, at its face as granting a certificate of public convenience to the applicant
Rural Transit Co., Ltd., the said order last mentioned is set aside and vacated on the
ground that the Rural Transit Company, Ltd., is not the real party in interest and its
application was fictitious
pison-arceo agricultural and development corp vs nlrc
279 SCRA 312 Business Organization Corporation Law Suit Under a Corporate
Name
In 1988, a labor case for illegal dismissal was filed against Jose Edmundo Pison and
Hacienda Lanutan. The labor arbiter issued a favorable for the dismissed workers.
Pison appealed and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the
labor arbiter. However, in the NLRC ruling, it ordered Pison-Arceo Agricultural and
Development Corporation (PADC) as solidarily liable together with Pison and the
Hacienda, PADC being the owner of the Hacienda and in which Pison is a majority
stockholder. PADC assails the order of the NLRC on due process grounds as it
averred that it was not issued summons hence it was not able to defend itself in
court and therefore the judgment against it is void.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of PADC is correct.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that in labor cases and other
administrative cases, the Rule of Civil Procedure are not strictly applied especially
so in the interest of laborers. So long as there is a substantial compliance, a party
can be placed under the jurisdiction of the labor court. In the case at bar, there is
substantial compliance when summons was served to Jose Edmundo Pison who was
also the administrator of the Hacienda. PADC is therefore adequately represented
by Pison in the proceedings in the labor tribunal. If at all, the non-inclusion of the
corporate name of PADC in the case before the executive labor arbiter was a mere
procedural error which did not at all affect the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals.