Transpo 1.doc

TRANSPORTATION LAW DIGESTS Atty . Callej a Part 1: General Principles 1. Luzon Stevedoring Co. Inc. v. Public Service Coi!!ion Luzon Stevedoring and Visayan Stevedore are engaged in the towing usiness hauling cargoes o! sugar" oil" !ertiliz er and others to and !ro# $anila to the Visayan %slands. &hey were charged o! eing engaged in the transportation o! cargo in the Philippines !or hire without authority and approval !ro# the Pulic Service Co##ission !or charging P'.(' per ag or picul o! sugar. %n holding that Luzon and Visayan were pulic utilities" the Supre#e Court de!ined a pulic utility as: "Public !ervice" include! ever# $er!on t%&t no' or %ere&(ter &# o'n) o$er&te) &n&ge) or control in t%e P%i li$$ ine! ) (or %ire or co$ en!&t ion) 'it% gene r&l or liited clientel e) '%et%er $er&nent) occ&!ion&l or &ccident&l) &nd done (or gener&l bu!ine!! $ur$o!e! &n# coon c&rrier) r&ilro&d) !treet r&il'&#) tr&ction r&il'&#) !ub'&#) otor ve%icle) eit%er (or (reig%t or $&!!enger) or bot%) 'it% or 'it%out (i*ed route &nd '%&tever &# be it! cl&!! i(ic &tio n) (reig %t or c&rri er !erv ice o( &n# cl&!!) e*$r e!! !ervi ce) !te&bo&t ) or !te&!%i$ line) $ontine!) (errie!) &nd !&ll '&ter cr&(t) eng&ged in t%e tr&n!$ort&tion o( $&!!enger! &nd (reig%t) !%i$#&rd) &rine r&il'&#) &rine re$&ir !%o$) '&re%ou!e) '%&r( or doc+) ice $l&nt) ice,re(rigeretion $l&nt) c&n&l) irrig&tion !#!te) !e'er&ge) g&!) electric lig%t) %e&t &nd $o'er) '&ter !u$$l# &nd $o'er) $etroleu) !e'er&ge !#!te) tele$%one) 'ire or 'irele!! telegr&$% !#!te &nd bro&dc&!ting r&dio !t&tion !. T%e Court &l!o !t&ted t%&t it i! not nece!!&r# (or t%e org&niz&tion to be dedic&ted (or $ublic u!e) r&t%er) '%&t i! nece!!&r# i! it u!t in !oe '&# be i$re!!ed 'it% & $ublic intere!t. )arl Vincent *. +aso -. Alb&no v. Re#e! &he Philippine Ports Authority held a pulic idding !or the contract to #anage and operate the $anila %nternational Container &er#inal ,$%C&-. %nternational Container &er#inal Services" %nc. ,%C&S%- was declared the winning idder. owever" +odol!o Alano opposed clai#ing that $%C& is a pulic utility" hence" re/uires a legislative !ranchise e!ore it can operate as such under Article 0%%" Section 1 1 o! the 123 Constitution. &he Court de!ined a $ublic utilit# &! & bu!ine!! or !ervice eng&ged in regul&rl# !u$$l#ing t%e $ublic 'it% !oe coodit# or !ervice o( $ublic con!euence !uc% &! electricit# ) g&!) '&ter) tr&n!$or t&tion) tele$%one or telegr&$% !ervice. A$&rt (ro !t&tute! '%ic% de(ine t%e $ublic utilitie! t%&t &re 'it%in t%e $urvie' o( !uc% !t&tute!) it 'ould be di((icult to con!truct & de(inition o( & $ublic utilit# '%ic% 'ould (it ever# conceiv&ble c&!e. A! it! n&e indic&te!) %o'ever ) t%e ter $ublic utilit# i$lie! & $ublic u!e &nd !ervice to t%e $ublic. %n holding that the contract is valid" the Court stated that (r&nc%i!e! i!!ued b# Congre!! &re not reuired be(ore e&c% &nd ever# $ublic utilit# &# o$er&te. T%e l&' %&! gr&nted cert&in &dini!tr&tive &gencie! t%e $o'er to gr&nt licen!e! or to &ut%orize t%e o$er&tion o( cert&in $ublic utilitie!. )arl Vincent *. +aso /. T&t&d v. G&rci& &his case involves the opposition o! Senators &atad" 4s#ena and *iazon o! the agree#ent to *uild" Lease and &rans!er a Light +ail &ransit in 56SA entered etween the 6epart#ent o! &ransportation and Co##unication and the 56SA L+& Consortiu# which was organized under the laws o! ong )ong. 4ne o! the argu#ents o! the senators is that the agree#ent was unconstitutional since it grants the consortiu#" which is a !oreign corporation" the ownership o! the 56SA L+& which is a pulic u tility . &he Supre#e Court ruled that t%e LRT Con!ortiu o'n! &re t%e r&il tr&c+!) rolling !toc+! li+e t%e co&c%e!) r&il !t&tion!) terin&l! &nd t%e $o'er $l&nt) not & $ublic utilit#. W%ile & (r&nc%i!e i! needed to o$er&te t%e!e (&cilitie! to !erve )arl Vincent *. +aso 7 ALS 689'19 P&ge 1 o( 1-

Transpo 1.doc

Documents

Transcript of Transpo 1.doc