Montoya v. Ignacio
Montoya v. Ignacio
Montoya v. Ignacio
MARCELINO IGNACIO
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-5868. December 29, 1953.]
SANCHO MONTOYA, in his own behalf and as guardian ad litem
of the minors ISMAEL, FELICITAS, DIVINA and NAPOLEON, all
surnamed MONTOYA , petitioners, vs. MARCELINO IGNACIO,
respondent.
Tereso Ma. Montoya, for petitioners.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J :
p
The second error refers to the person who was actually operating the
jeepney at the time of collision. It is claimed that while Marcelino Ignacio, owner
of the jeepney, has leased the same to one Leoncio Tahimik on June 8, 1948, and
that at the time of collision it was the latter who was actually operating it, the
contract of lease was null and void because it was not approved by the Public
Service Commission as required by section 16, paragraph h, of the Public Service
Law.
There is merit in this contention. The law really requires the approval of the
Public Service Commission in order that a franchise, or any privilege pertaining
thereto, may be sold or leased without infringing the certicate issued to the
grantee. The reason is obvious. Since a franchise is personal in nature any
transfer or lease thereof should be notied to the Public Service Commission so
that the latter may take proper safeguards to protect the interest of the public. In
fact, the law requires that, before the approval is granted, there should be a
public hearing, with notice to all interested parties, in order that the Commission
may determine if there are good and reasonable grounds justifying the transfer
or lease of the property covered by the franchise, or if the sale or lease is
detrimental to public interest. Such being the reason and philosophy behind this
requirement, it follows that if the property covered by the franchise is
transferred, or leased to another without obtaining the requisite approval, the
transfer is not binding against the Public Service Commission and in
contemplation of law the grantee continues to be responsible under the franchise
in relation to the Commission and to the public. Since the lease of the jeepney in
question was made without such approval, the only conclusion that can be drawn
is that Marcelino Ignacio still continues to be its operator in contemplation of law,
and as such is responsible for the consequences incident to its operation, one of
them being the collision under consideration.
It may be argued that section 16, paragraph (h) provides in its last part that
"nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the sale, alienation, or
lease by any public utility of any of its property in the ordinary course of
business", which gives the impression that the approval of the Public Service
Commission is but a mere formality which does not aect the eectivity of the
transfer or lease of the property belonging to a public utility. But such provision
only means that even if the approval has not been obtained the transfer or lease
is valid and binding between parties although not eective against the public and
the Public Service Commission. The approval is only necessary to protect public
interest.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. Judgment is hereby
rendered ordering the defendant Marcelino Ignacio to pay the plaintis the sum
of P31,000 as damages, with costs.