Ishi v. Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On December 18, 1929, Genanichi Ishi, a Japanese subject, was granted a certificate of public convenience by the Public Service Commission to operate a Ford automobile for passenger transportation in the Province of Davao. This authorization was subject to specific conditions, including the requirement for prior commission authorization before altering operations, increasing or decreasing equipment, substituting vehicles, changing carriage forms, or operating outside the authorized zone. The certificate was to remain in force until further order. 2. Procedural History: On October 23, 1935, Ishi applied to the Public Service Commission for authorization to add another Ford automobile to his fleet, citing insufficient transportation capacity in Davao Province. The Commission denied this application on February 14, 1936, citing the constitutional prohibition against granting franchises or operating authorizations for public utilities to non-citizens or entities not majority-owned by Filipino citizens. Ishi subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari against this denial. 3. The Petition: Ishi filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Public Service Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in denying his application to increase his equipment. However, the petition failed to adequately allege that the Commission acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, suggesting that a review under section 35 of Act No. 3108 would have been the more appropriate procedural remedy. Despite this procedural deficiency, the Supreme Court addressed the underlying constitutional question regarding whether an application for an increase in equipment, even for an existing operator, constitutes a form of authorization restricted by Article XIII, section 8 of the Constitution to Filipino citizens or entities.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's application for an increase in his equipment falls within the constitutional prohibition against granting franchises or authorizations for public utilities to non-citizens or entities not majority-owned by Filipinos, despite the original certificate having been issued before the Constitution took effect. Whether the respondent Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in denying the application.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Public Service Commission denying the application for an increase in equipment.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that the petitioner's application for an increase in equipment, while not requiring a new franchise, did necessitate an "authorization" from the Public Service Commission. The phrase "any other form of authorization" in Article XIII, Section 8 of the Constitution is comprehensive enough to include the authorization sought by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the Constitution's purpose was the nationalization of public services, and this policy extends to any form of authorization for operating a public utility, not just initial franchises. Therefore, as a foreign national, the petitioner could not be granted such authorization. On Issue 2: The Court found that the allegations in the petition failed to establish that the respondent Commission exceeded its jurisdiction. The Commission acted within its powers by applying the constitutional provision to the petitioner's request for an increase in equipment. The Court noted that the proper procedural remedy for challenging the order would have been a review under Section 35 of Act No. 3108, as amended, rather than a writ of certiorari, which is reserved for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
The constitutional provision mandating that franchises, certificates, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted only to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or entities organized under the laws of the Philippines, with at least sixty percentum of the capital owned by citizens of the Philippines, applies to any form of authorization, including the increase of equipment for an existing public utility service, even if the original certificate was granted prior to the effectivity of the Constitution.