Ynchausti Co v PUC

Ynchausti Co v PUC (1923)  Johns, J. FACTS: Petitioner is a shipping company operating the steamship Venus. By virtue of a decision by the Public Utility Commissioner (PUC), said steamship was granted the authority to be used in the Manila-Iloilo route. In operating the Manila-Iloilo route, the steamship was given a schedule of departure from Manila on Tuesdays at 5pm and departure from Iloilo on Fridays Frida ys at 5pm. Furthermore, the vessel is not allowed to make any change in the schedule nor withdraw or suspend operation except upon authority of the Commission. On Nov 10 1920, petitioner applied for a change in the schedule, i.e. departure from Manila on Wednesday at 4 PM and Iloilo on Saturday. Petitioner cites the ff. reasons: The vessel reaches Manila on Sundays when there is no labor available o The two working days between the trips left are not enough for unloading and loading o On Nov 18, petitioner applied for a permit to temporarily use the proposed schedule pending the hearing. PUC granted temporary permits. The proposed change met various protests, leading the respondent to revoke the temporary permits in a decision dated July 27, 1922. The PUC cited its power to control the schedule of the petitioner operating as a common carrier. Petitioner brought the case via certiorari, as stipulated in §37 of Act No. 2307 or the Public Utility Law. The bone of contention is the validity of §19 of Act No. 2307, as amended by Acts No. 2313 and 2362, which provides: Nor shall any public carrier by land or water within the Philippine Islands or any public utility, without the o approval of the Commission first had, make any permanent change in its time tables and sailing schedules or in its service, or fail to continue to call at any of its regular points or ports of call. 













 

ISSUES + RULING: Is §19 a valid delegation of power?  YES. The language of the provision is clear. There is clear legislative intent to grant the power to fix sailing schedules. The waterways are analogous to the roads and highways of the Philippine Islands. Citing Pond on Public Utilities (Sir might ask the quote in full): “ The The control of the streets and highways is in the state in trust for the public for whose use and o convenience they are dedicated as a means of transportation and communication, thereby affording to the public the means by which they may go from place to place, communicate with each other and enjoy such other conveniences as the various kinds of service provided by municipal public utilities afford. As the streets and highways are dedicated exclusively for the use and convenience of the public generally, it follows that the legislature acting for the state, or any municipal agency to which this power may have been delegated, should make no grant which will materially interfere with the uses for which the streets and highways are dedicated." “The rule of law is now universally accepted that when private property is devoted to a public use it is o subject to public regulation and control.”  Munn v Illinois is also cited: “property is clothed clothed with a public interest and devoted to a public use when used in a manner to make it of o  public consequence, and to affect the entire community, so that when one devotes property to a use in which the public has an interest, he virtually grants to the public an interest in that use, and submits it to  public regulation and control for t he common good to the extent of th e interest so granted.”  The Commission is vested with a large, discretionary, administrative power. The Court must not interfere when the legal exercise of discretion is involved. Through the public hearings, it was clear from evidence gathered that the rescheduling will run against public interest. 









DISPOSITION: Petition denied.