c



 

 
Ô
 
 



À
  
 

à

àà




 petitioner,
vs.





À






 
respondents.




u


@ is Special Civil Action for 2


 and Pro ibition under Rule 65 of t e Rules of
Court seeks to pro ibit respondent Civil Aeronautics Board from exercising jurisdiction
over private respondent's Application for t e issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, and to annul and set aside a temporary operating permit
issued by t e Civil Aeronautics Board in favor of Grand International Airways (GrandAir,
for brevity) allowing t e same to engage in sc eduled domestic air transportation
services, particularly t e Manila-Cebu, Manila-Davao, and converse routes.

@ e main reason submitted by petitioner P ilippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) to support its
petition is t e fact t at GrandAir does not possess a legislative franc ise aut orizing it to
engage in air transportation service wit in t e P ilippines or elsew ere. Suc franc ise
is, allegedly, a requisite for t e issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience or
Necessity by t e respondent Board, as mandated under Section 11, Article XII of t e
Constitution.

Respondent GrandAir, on t e ot er and, posits t at a legislative franc ise is no longer

a requirement for t e issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or
a @emporary Operating Permit, following t e Court's pronouncements in t e case of
ë
 .
 ,as restated by t e 2
 ë  ë  
  .
2 ë
 
and Ô ë
 .  . 

 ë
 
., and t e Hon. Civil Aeronautics Board. 

On November 24, 1994, private respondent GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity wit t e Board, w ic application was docketed as CAB
Case No. EP-12711.!Accordingly, t e C ief Hearing Officer of t e CAB issued a Notice
of Hearing setting t e application for initial earing on December 16, 1994, and directing
GrandAir to serve a copy of t e application and corresponding notice to all sc eduled
P ilippine Domestic operators. On December 14, 1994, GrandAir filed its Compliance,
and requested for t e issuance of a @emporary Operating Permit. Petitioner, itself t e
older of a legislative franc ise to operate air transport services, filed an Opposition to
t e application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on December 16,
1995 on t e following grounds:

A. @ e CAB as no jurisdiction to ear t e petitioner's application until t e latter as first

obtained a franc ise to operate from Congress. 

B. @ e petitioner's application is deficient in form and substance in t at:

1. @ e application does not indicate a route structure including a

computation of trunkline, secondary and rural available seat kilometers
(ASK) w ic s all always be maintained at a mont ly level at least 5%
and 20% of t e ASK offered into and out of t e proposed base of
operations for rural and secondary, respectively.

2. It does not contain a project/feasibility study, projected profit and loss

statements, projected balance s eet, insurance coverage, list of
personnel, list of spare parts inventory, tariff structure, documents
supportive of financial capacity, route flig t sc edule, contracts on
facilities ( angars, maintenance, lot) etc.

C. Approval of petitioner's application would violate t e equal protection clause of t e

constitution.

D. @ ere is no urgent need and demand for t e services applied for.

E. @o grant petitioner's application would only result in ruinous competition contrary to

Section 4(d) of R.A. 776. 

At t e initial earing for t e application, petitioner raised t e issue of lack of jurisdiction

of t e Board to ear t e application because GrandAir did not possess a legislative
franc ise.

On December 20, 1994, t e C ief Hearing Officer of CAB issued an Order denying
petitioner's Opposition. Pertinent portions of t e Order read:

PAL alleges t at t e CAB as no jurisdiction to ear t e petitioner's application until t e

latter as first obtained a franc ise to operate from Congress.

@ e Civil Aeronautics Board as jurisdiction to ear and resolve t e application. In ë

  . 2ë, CA G.R. No. 23365, it as been ruled t at under Section 10 (c) (I) of
R.A. 776, t e Board possesses t is specific power and duty.

In view t ereof, t e opposition of PAL on t is ground is ereby denied.

SO ORDERED.

Meantime, on December 22, 1994, petitioner t is time, opposed private respondent's

application for a temporary permit maintaining t at:
 1. @ e applicant does not possess t e required fitness and capability of operating t e
services applied for under RA 776; and,

2. Applicant as failed to prove t at t ere is clear and urgent public need for t e services
applied for.

On December 23, 1994, t e Board promulgated Resolution No. 119(92) approving t e

issuance of a @emporary Operating Permit in favor of Grand Air for a period of t ree
mont s, . ., from December 22, 1994 to Marc 22, 1994. Petitioner moved for t e
reconsideration of t e issuance of t e @emporary Operating Permit on January 11,
1995, but t e same was denied in CAB Resolution No. 02 (95) on February 2, 1995. In
t e said Resolution, t e Board justified its assumption of jurisdiction over GrandAir's
application.

GHEREAS , t e CAB is specifically aut orized under Section 10-C (1) of Republic Act
No. 776 as follows: 

(c) @ e Board s all ave t e following specific powers and duties:

(1) In accordance wit t e provision of C apter IV of t is Act, to issue, deny, amend

revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in w ole or in part, upon petitioner-
complaint, or upon its own initiative, any temporary operating permit or Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity; Provided, owever; t at in t e case of foreign air
carriers, t e permit s all be issued wit t e approval of t e President of t e Republic of
t e P ilippines.

GHEREAS, suc aut ority was affirmed in àë . 2ë, (23 SCRA 992), w erein t e
Supreme Court eld t at t e CAB can even on its own initiative, grant a @OP even before
t e presentation of evidence;

GHEREAS, more recently, ë   . 2ë, (CA-GR No. 23365), promulgated on
October 30, 1991, eld t at in accordance wit its mandate, t e CAB can issue not only a
@OP but also a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to a qualified
applicant t erefor in t e absence of a legislative franc ise, citing t erein as basis t e
decision of ë
 .
 (175 SCRA 264) w ic provides (
 ) t at:

a) Franc ises by Congress are not required before eac and every public utility may
operate w en t e law as granted certain administrative agencies t e power to grant
licenses for or to aut orize t e operation of certain public utilities;

b) @ e Constitutional provision in Article XII, Section 11 t at t e issuance of a franc ise,

certificate or ot er form of aut orization for t e operation of a public utility does not
necessarily imply t at only Congress as t e power to grant suc aut orization since our
statute books are replete wit laws granting specified agencies in t e Executive Branc
t e power to issue suc aut orization for certain classes of public utilities.

GHEREAS, Executive Order No. 219 w ic took effect on 22 January 1995, provides in
Section 2.1 t at a minimum of two (2) operators in eac route/link s all be encouraged
and t at routes/links presently serviced by only one (1) operator s all be open for entry to
additional operators.
 RESOLVED, (@)HEREFORE, t at t e Motion for Reconsideration filed by P ilippine
Airlines on January 05, 1995 on t e Grant by t is Board of a @emporary Operating Permit
(@OP) to Grand International Airways, Inc. alleging among ot ers t at t e CAB as no
suc jurisdiction, is ereby DENIED, as it ereby denied, in view of t e foregoing and
considering t at t e grounds relied upon by t e movant are not indubitable.

On Marc 21, 1995, upon motion by private respondent, t e temporary permit was
extended for a period of six (6) mont s or up to September 22, 1995.

Hence t is petition, filed on April 3, 1995.

Petitioners argue t at t e respondent Board acted beyond its powers and jurisdiction in
taking cognizance of GrandAir's application for t e issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity, and in issuing a temporary operating permit in t e
meantime, since GrandAir as not been granted and does not possess a legislative
franc ise to engage in sc eduled domestic air transportation. A legislative franc ise is
necessary before anyone may engage in air transport services, and a franc ise may
only be granted by Congress. @ is is t e meaning given by t e petitioner upon a
reading of Section 11, Article XII, and Section 1, Article VI, "of t e Constitution.

@o support its t eory, PAL submits Opinion No. 163, S. 1989 of t e Department of
Justice, w ic reads:

Dr. Arturo C. Corona

Executive Director
Civil Aeronautics Board
PPL Building, 1000 U.N. Avenue
Ermita, Manila

Sir:

@ is as reference to your request for opinion on t e necessity of a legislative franc ise

before t e Civil Aeronautics Board ("CAB") may issue a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity and/or permit to engage in air commerce or air transportation to an
individual or entity.

You state t at during t e earing on t e application of Cebu Air for a congressional

franc ise,   2 2

 
   

 
2  2ë   
  
  


   
 
     
 . You believe
ot erwise, owever, for t e reason t at under R.A. No. 776, as amended, t e CAB is
explicitly empowered to issue operating permits or certificates of public convenience and
necessity and t at t is statutory provision is not inconsistent wit t e current c arter.

Ge concur wit t e view expressed by t e House Committee on Corporations and

Franc ises. In an opinion rendered in favor of your predecessor-in-office, t is Department
observed t at, ²

. . . it is useful to note t e distinction between t e franc ise to operate and a permit to

commence operation. @ e former is sovereign and legislative in nature; it can be
conferred only by t e lawmaking aut ority (17 G and P, pp. 691-697). @ e latter is
 administrative and regulatory in c aracter (In re Application of Fort Crook-Bellevue
Boulevard Line, 283 NG 223); it is granted by an administrative agency, suc as t e
Public Service Commission [now Board of @ransportation], in t e case of land
transportation, and t e Civil Aeronautics Board, in case of air services. G ile a legislative
franc ise is a pre-requisite to a grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity
to an airline company, suc franc ise alone cannot constitute t e aut ority to commence
operations, inasmuc as t ere are still matters relevant to suc operations w ic are not
determined in t e franc ise, like rates, sc edules and routes, and w ic matters are
resolved in t e process of issuance of permit by t e administrative. (Secretary of Justice
opn No. 45, s. 1981)

Indeed, aut orities are agreed t at a certificate of public convenience and necessity is an
aut orization issued by t e appropriate governmental agency for t e operation of public
services for w ic a franc ise is required by law (Almario, @ransportation and Public
Service Law, 1977 Ed., p. 293; Agbayani, Commercial Law of t e P il., Vol. 4, 1979 Ed.,
pp. 380-381).

Based on t e foregoing, it is clear t at a franc ise is t e legislative aut orization to

engage in a business activity or enterprise of a public nature, w ereas a certificate of
public convenience and necessity is a regulatory measure w ic constitutes t e
franc ise's aut ority to commence operations. It is t us logical t at t e grant of t e former
s ould precede t e latter.

Please be guided accordingly.

(SGD.)
SEDFR
EY A.
ORDO
NEZ
Secreta
ry of
Justice

Respondent GrandAir, on t e ot er and, relies on its interpretation of t e provisions of

Republic Act 776, w ic follows t e pronouncements of t e Court of Appeals in t e
cases of ë   . 2 ë
 
, and Ô ë
 .  .


 ë
 ( 
).

In bot cases, t e issue resolved was w et er or not t e Civil Aeronautics Board can
issue t e Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or @emporary Operating
Permit to a prospective domestic air transport operator w o does not possess a
legislative franc ise to operate as suc . Relying on t e Court's pronouncement in
ë
 .
 ( 
), t e Court of Appeals up eld t e aut ority of t e Board to
issue suc aut ority, even in t e absence of a legislative franc ise, w ic aut ority is
derived from Section 10 of Republic Act 776, as amended by P.D. 1462. 

@ e Civil Aeronautics Board as jurisdiction over GrandAir's Application for a

@emporary Operating Permit. @ is rule as been establis ed in t e case of à  
ë
 .,  . 2 ë
 
, promulgated on June 13, 1968. @ e Board
is expressly aut orized by Republic Act 776 to issue a temporary operating permit or
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, and not ing contained in t e said law
negates t e power to issue said permit before t e completion of t e applicant's
evidence and t at of t e oppositor t ereto on t e main petition. Indeed, t e CAB's
aut ority to grant a temporary permit "upon its own initiative" strongly suggests t e
power to exercise said aut ority, even before t e presentation of said evidence as
begun. Assuming 
  t at a legislative franc ise is prerequisite to t e issuance of
a permit, t e absence of t e same does not affect t e jurisdiction of t e Board to ear
t e application, but tolls only upon t e ultimate issuance of t e requested permit.

@ e power to aut orize and control t e operation of a public utility is admittedly a

prerogative of t e legislature, since Congress is t at branc of government vested wit
plenary powers of legislation.

@ e franc ise is a legislative grant, w et er made directly by t e legislature itself, or by

any one of its properly constituted instrumentalities. @ e grant, w en made, binds t e
public, and is, directly or indirectly, t e act of t e state.  

@ e issue in t is petition is w et er or not Congress, in enacting Republic Act 776, as

delegated t e aut ority to aut orize t e operation of domestic air transport services to
t e respondent Board, suc t at Congressional mandate for t e approval of suc
aut ority is no longer necessary.

Congress as granted certain administrative agencies t e power to grant licenses for, or

to aut orize t e operation of certain public utilities. Git t e growing complexity of
modern life, t e multiplication of t e subjects of governmental regulation, and t e
increased difficulty of administering t e laws, t ere is a constantly growing tendency
towards t e delegation of greater powers by t e legislature, and towards t e approval of
t e practice by t e courts. !It is generally recognized t at a franc ise may be derived
indirectly from t e state t roug a duly designated agency, and to t is extent, t e power
to grant franc ises as frequently been delegated, even to agencies ot er t an t ose of
a legislative nature. In pursuance of t is, it as been eld t at privileges conferred by
grant by local aut orities as agents for t e state constitute as muc a legislative
franc ise as t oug t e grant ad been made by an act of t e Legislature. 

@ e trend of modern legislation is to vest t e Public Service Commissioner wit t e

power to regulate and control t e operation of public services under reasonable rules
and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere wit t e exercise of t at
discretion w en it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal rig t. 

It is t is policy w ic was pursued by t e Court in ë
 .

 . @ us, a reading of
t e pertinent issuances governing t e P ilippine Ports Aut ority,  proves t at t e PPA
is empowered to undertake by itself t e operation and management of t e Manila
International Container @erminal, or to aut orize its operation and management by
anot er by contract or ot er means, at its option. @ e latter power aving been
delegated to t e to PPA, a franc ise from Congress to aut orize an entity ot er t an t e
PPA to operate and manage t e MICP becomes unnecessary.
Given t e foregoing postulates, we find t at t e Civil Aeronautics Board as t e
aut ority to issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, or @emporary
Operating Permit to a domestic air transport operator, w o, t oug not possessing a
legislative franc ise, meets all t e ot er requirements prescribed by t e law. Suc
requirements were enumerated in Section 21 of R.A. 776.

@ ere is not ing in t e law nor in t e Constitution, w ic indicates t at a legislative

franc ise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air
transport operator. Alt oug Section 11 of Article XII recognizes Congress' control over
any franc ise, certificate or aut ority to operate a public utility, it does not mean
Congress as exclusive aut ority to issue t e same. Franc ises issued by Congress
are not required before eac and every public utility may operate. In many instances,
Congress as seen it fit to delegate t is function to government agencies, specialized
particularly in t eir respective areas of public service.

A reading of Section 10 of t e same reveals t e clear intent of Congress to delegate t e

aut ority to regulate t e issuance of a license to operate domestic air transport services:

Sec. 10. Powers and Duties of t e Board. (A) Except as ot erwise provided erein, t e
Board s all ave t e power to regulate t e economic aspect of air transportation, and
s all ave general supervision and regulation of, t e jurisdiction and control over air
carriers, general sales agents, cargo sales agents, and air freig t forwarders as well as
t eir property rig ts, equipment, facilities and franc ise, insofar as may be necessary for
t e purpose of carrying out t e provision of t is Act.

In support of t e Board's aut ority as stated above, it is given t e following specific

powers and duties:

(C) @ e Board s all ave t e following specific powers and duties:

(1) In accordance wit t e provisions of C apter IV of t is Act, to issue, deny, amend,

revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke in w ole or in part upon petition or
complaint or upon its own initiative any @emporary Operating Permit or Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity: Provided owever, @ at in t e case of foreign air
carriers, t e permit s all be issued wit t e approval of t e President of t e Republic of
t e P ilippines.

Petitioner argues t at since R.A. 776 gives t e Board t e aut ority to issue "Certificates
of Public Convenience and Necessity", t is, according to petitioner, means t at a
legislative franc ise is an absolute requirement. It cites a number of aut orities
supporting t e view t at a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is issued to
a public service for w ic a franc ise is required by law, as distinguis ed from a
"Certificate of Public Convenience" w ic is an aut orization issued for t e operation of
public services for w ic no franc ise, eit er municipal or legislative, is required by law.
"


@ is submission relies on t e premise t at t e aut ority to issue a certificate of public

convenience and necessity is a regulatory measure separate and distinct from t e
aut ority to grant a franc ise for t e operation of t e public utility subject of t is
particular case, w ic is exclusively lodged by petitioner in Congress.

Ge do not agree wit t e petitioner.

Many and varied are t e definitions of certificates of public convenience w ic courts

and legal writers ave drafted. Some statutes use t e terms "convenience and
necessity" w ile ot ers use only t e words "public convenience." @ e terms
"convenience and necessity", if used toget er in a statute, are usually eld not to be
separable, but are construed toget er. Bot words modify eac ot er and must be
construed toget er. @ e word 'necessity' is so connected, not as an additional
requirement but to modify and qualify w at mig t ot erwise be taken as t e strict
significance of t e word necessity. Public convenience and necessity exists w en t e
proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of t e public and supply a need w ic t e
existing facilities do not adequately afford. It does not mean or require an actual
p ysical necessity or an indispensable t ing. 

@ e terms "convenience" and "necessity" are to be construed toget er, alt oug t ey are
not synonymous, and effect must be given bot . @ e convenience of t e public must not
be circumscribed by according to t e word "necessity" its strict meaning or an essential

requisites. 

@ e use of t e word "necessity", in conjunction wit "public convenience" in a certificate

of aut orization to a public service entity to operate, does not in any way modify t e
nature of suc certification, or t e requirements for t e issuance of t e same. It is t e
law w ic determines t e requisites for t e issuance of suc certification, and not t e
title indicating t e certificate.

Congress, by giving t e respondent Board t e power to issue permits for t e operation

of domestic transport services, as delegated to t e said body t e aut ority to
determine t e capability and competence of a prospective domestic air transport
operator to engage in suc venture. @ is is not an instance of transforming t e
respondent Board into a mini-legislative body, wit unbridled aut ority to c oose w o
s ould be given aut ority to operate domestic air transport services.

@o be valid, t e delegation itself must be circumscribed by legislative restrictions, not a

"roving commission" t at will give t e delegate unlimited legislative aut ority. It must not
be a delegation "running riot" and "not canalized wit banks t at keep it from
overflowing." Ot erwise, t e delegation is in legal effect an abdication of legislative
aut ority, a total surrender by t e legislature of its prerogatives in favor of t e delegate.  

Congress, in t is instance, as set specific limitations on ow suc aut ority s ould be

exercised.

Firstly, Section 4 of R.A. No. 776, as amended, sets out t e following guidelines or
policies:
 Sec. 4. Declaration of policies. In t e exercise and performance of its powers and duties
under t is Act, t e Civil Aeronautics Board and t e Civil Aeronautics Administrator s all
consider t e following, among ot er t ings, as being in t e public interest, and in
accordance wit t e public convenience and necessity:

(a) @ e development and utilization of t e air potential of t e P ilippines;

(b) @ e encouragement and development of an air transportation system properly

adapted to t e present and future of foreign and domestic commerce of t e P ilippines,
of t e Postal Service and of t e National Defense;

(c) @ e regulation of air transportation in suc manner as to recognize and preserve t e

in erent advantages of, assure t e ig est degree of safety in, and foster sound
economic condition in, suc transportation, and to improve t e relations between, and
coordinate transportation by, air carriers;

(d) @ e promotion of adequate, economical and efficient service by air carriers at

reasonable c arges, wit out unjust discriminations, undue preferences or advantages, or
unfair or destructive competitive practices;

(e) Competition between air carriers to t e extent necessary to assure t e sound

development of an air transportation system properly adapted to t e need of t e foreign
and domestic commerce of t e P ilippines, of t e Postal Service, and of t e National
Defense;

(f) @o promote safety of flig t in air commerce in t e P ilippines; and,

(g) @ e encouragement and development of civil aeronautics.

More importantly, t e said law as enumerated t e requirements to determine t e

competency of a prospective operator to engage in t e public service of air
transportation.

Sec. 12. Citizens ip requirement. Except as ot erwise provided in t e Constitution and

existing treaty or treaties, a permit aut orizing a person to engage in domestic air
!
commerce and/or air transportation s all be issued only to citizens of t e P ilippines 

Sec. 21. Issuance of permit. @ e Board s all issue a permit aut orizing t e w ole or any
part of t e service covered by t e application, if it finds: (1) t at t e applicant is fit, willing
and able to perform suc service properly in conformity wit t e provisions of t is Act and
t e rules, regulations, and requirements issued t ereunder; and (2) t at suc service is
required by t e public convenience and necessity; ot erwise t e application s all be
denied.

Furt ermore, t e procedure for t e processing of t e application of a Certificate of

Public Convenience and Necessity ad been establis ed to ensure t e weeding out of
t ose entities t at are not deserving of public service. 

In sum, respondent Board s ould now be allowed to continue earing t e application of

GrandAir for t e issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, t ere
being no legal obstacle to t e exercise of its jurisdiction.
ACCORDINGLY, in view of t e foregoing considerations, t e Court RESOLVED to
DISMISS t e instant petition for lack of merit. @ e respondent Civil Aeronautics Board is
ereby DIREC@ED to CON@INUE earing t e application of respondent Grand
International Airways, Inc. for t e issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity.

SO ORDERED.

 à



 


##$%

1 G.R. No. 83551, July 11, 1989, 175 SCRA 264.

2 CA G.R. SP No. 23365, October 30, 1991.

3 CA G.R. SP No. 36787, July 19, 1995.

4 Annex "A" Petition, p. 31,

 .

5 Annex "D", Petition,

 , pp. 43-44.

6 Annex "F", Petition,

 , pp. 54-63.

7 Annex "H", Petition,

 , p. 79.

8 Annex "I", Petition,

 , pp. 80-81.

9 Sec. 11. No franc ise, certificate, or any ot er form of aut orization for t e operation of
a public utility s all be granted except to citizens of t e P ilippines or to corporations or
associations organized under t e laws of t e P ilippines at least sixty
  of
w ose capital is owned by suc citizens, nor s all suc franc ise, certificate, or
aut orization be exclusive in c aracter or for a longer period t an fifty years. Neit er s all
any franc ise or rig t be granted except under t e condition t at it s all be subject to
amendment, alteration, or repeal by t e Congress w en t e common good so requires.
@ e state s all encourage equity participation in public utilities by t e general public. @ e
participation of foreign investors in t e governing body of any public utility enterprise s all
be limited to t eir proportionate s are in its capital, and all t e executive and managing
officers of suc corporation or association must be citizens of t e P ilippines.

10 Sec. 1. @ e legislative power s all be vested in t e Congress of t e P ilippines, w ic

s all consist of a Senate and a House and a House of Representatives, except to t e
extent reserved to t e people by t e provision on initiative and referendum. Sec. 10.
Powers and Duties of t e Board. (A) Except as ot erwise provided erein, t e Board
s all ave t e power to regulate t e economic aspect of air transportation, and s all ave
general supervision and regulation of, t e jurisdiction and control over air carriers,
general sales agents, cargo sales agents, and air freig t forwarders as well as t eir
property rig ts, equipment, facilities and franc ise, insofar as may be necessary for t e
purpose of carrying out t e provision of t is Act.
 (B) @ e Board may perform suc acts, conduct suc investigation, issue and amend suc
orders, and make and amend suc general or special rules, regulations, and procedures
as it s all deem necessary to carry out t e provisions of t is Act.

(C) @ e Board s all ave t e following specific powers and duties:

(1) In accordance wit t e provisions of C apter IV of t is Act, to issue, deny, amend,

revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke in w ole or in part upon petition or
complaint or upon its own initiative any @emporary Operating Permit or Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity: Provided owever, @ at in t e case of foreign air
carriers, t e permit s all be issued wit t e approval of t e President of t e Republic of
t e P ilippines. . . . .

12 G.R. No. L-24219, 23 SCRA 992.

13 Galla Galla v. Galla Galla Gater Co. 172 US 1, 36 Am Jur 2d 734.

14 Pangasinan @ransportation Co., Inc. vs. @ e Public Service Commission, G.R. No.
47065, June 26, 1940, 70 P il 221.

15 Dyer vs. @uskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Port. 296, 27 Am. D. 655; C ristian-@odd @el. Co.
vs. Commonwealt , 161 S.G. 543, 156 Ky, 557, 37 C.J.S. 158.

16 Superior Gater, Lig t and Power Co. vs. City of Superior, 181 N.G. 113, 174 Gis.
257, affirmed 183 N.G. 254, 37 C.J.S. 158.

17 Ync austi Steams ip Co. vs. PUC, 42 P il 642.

18 P.D. 857 and Executive Order No. 30.

19 Albano vs. Reyes, 
.

20 Memorandum of Petitioner,
 , pp. 417-41 8.

21 Almario, @ransportation and t e Public Service Law, 1966 ed., p. 288.

22 Giscon @el. Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 156 N.G. 614, 162 N.G. 383, 73 C.J.S.
1099.

23 Cruz, I., P ilippine Political Law, 1996, p. 97.

24 Ô Section 11, Article XII, Constitution, 
.

25 Ô Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24, RA 776.