Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • THE UNITED STATES VVS TAN PIACO

    Uploaded by

    BAC-PB Paulo Blay
    80 views1 page
    Piaco was renting and operating two trucks to carry passengers and freight under special contracts on highways in Leyte Province. He was charged with violating the Public Utility Law by operating a public utility without permission. The court held that Piaco was not operating a public utility subject to regulation because (1) he was not holding himself out to carry all passengers and freight for all who asked but rather operated under special contracts, and (2) his business was a private enterprise for carrying passengers and freight selectively rather than a public use open to the indefinite public. To be a public utility under the law, the business must be generally available to the public rather than optional, and the public benefit must be the primary purpose rather than incidental

    Original Description:

    TRANSPO LAW CASE DIGEST

    Original Title

    THE UNITED STATES vVS TAN PIACO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Piaco was renting and operating two trucks to carry passengers and freight under special contracts on highways in Leyte Province. He was charged with violating the Public Utility Law by operating a public utility without permission. The court held that Piaco was not operating a public utility subject to regulation because (1) he was not holding himself out to carry all passengers and freight for all who asked but rather operated under special contracts, and (2) his business was a private enterprise for carrying passengers and freight selectively rather than a public use open to the indefinite public. To be a public utility under the law, the business must be generally available to the public rather than optional, and the public benefit must be the primary purpose rather than incidental

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views1 page

    THE UNITED STATES VVS TAN PIACO

    Uploaded by

    BAC-PB Paulo Blay
    Piaco was renting and operating two trucks to carry passengers and freight under special contracts on highways in Leyte Province. He was charged with violating the Public Utility Law by operating a public utility without permission. The court held that Piaco was not operating a public utility subject to regulation because (1) he was not holding himself out to carry all passengers and freight for all who asked but rather operated under special contracts, and (2) his business was a private enterprise for carrying passengers and freight selectively rather than a public use open to the indefinite public. To be a public utility under the law, the business must be generally available to the public rather than optional, and the public benefit must be the primary purpose rather than incidental

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

    TAN PIACO, VENTURA ESTUYA, PEDRO The true criterion by which to judge of the character of the use is whether the public may enjoy
    HOMERES, MAXIMINO GALSA and EMILIO LEOPANDO, defendants. TAN PIACO, it by right or only by permission. For all of the foregoing reasons, the appellant was not
    appellant. G.R. No. L-15122 March 10, 1920 operating a public utility, for public use, and was not, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of the
    Public Utility Commission.
    Facts:
    Piaco rented two automobile trucks and was using them upon the highways of the Province of
    Leyte for the purpose of carrying some passengers and freight. He carried passengers and
    freight under a special contract in each case. He had not held himself out to carry all
    passengers and all freight for all persons who might offer passengers and freight. Said
    defendants were charged with a violation of the Public Utility Law (Act No. 2307 as amended
    by Acts Nos. 2362 and 2694), in that they were operating a public utility without permission
    from the Public Utility Commissioner.

    Issue:
    Whether the appellant was a public utility under the foregoing definitions, and was therefore
    subject to the control and regulation of the Public Utility Commission.

    Held:
    No. In support of the conclusion of the Attorney-General, he cites the case of Terminal
    Taxicab Co. vs. Kutz (241 U. S.. 252). Section 14 of Act No. 2307, as amended by section 9 of
    Act No. 2694, provides that: "The Public Utility Commission or Commissioners shall have
    general supervision and regulation of, jurisdiction and control over, all public utilities. . . The
    term 'public utility' is hereby defined to include every individual, copartnership, association,
    corporation or joint stock company, etc., etc., that now or hereafter may own, operate,
    managed, or control any common carrier, railroad, street railway, etc., etc., engaged in the
    transportation of passengers, cargo, etc.,etc., for public use."

    Under the provisions of said section, two things are necessary: (a) The individual,
    copartnership, etc., etc., must be a public utility; and (b) the business in which such individual,
    copartnership, etc. etc., is engaged must be for public use. So long as the individual or
    copartnership, etc., etc., is engaged in a purely private enterprise, without attempting to render
    service to all who may apply, he can in no sense be considered a public utility, for public use.

    "Public use" means the same as "use by the public." The essential feature of the public use is
    that it is not confined to privilege individuals, but is open to the indefinite public. It is this
    indefinite or unrestricted quality that gives it its public character. In determining whether a use
    is public, we must look not only the character of the business to be done, but also to the
    proposed mode of doing it. If the use is merely optional with the owners, or the public benefit is
    merely incidental, it is not a public use, authorizing the exercise of the jurisdiction of the public
    utility commission. There must be, in general, a right which the law compels the power to give
    to the general public.

    It is not enough that the general prosperity of the public is promoted. Public use is not
    synonymous with public interest.

    You might also like