Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 (DIGEST) - KRV

    Uploaded by

    Khenlie Villaceran
    83 views2 pages
    The document discusses the case PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997. In this case, GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Civil Aeronautics Board to operate an air transportation service. Philippine Airlines (PAL) opposed this, arguing that a legislative franchise was required per the Constitution. However, the Court ruled that a legislative franchise is not required for a CPCN. The use of the word "necessity" in a CPCN does not modify the requirements or nature of the certification. Congress delegated authority to the Board to issue permits for domestic air transport and determine operators' capabilities through R

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 (DIGEST) -KRV

    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
    The document discusses the case PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997. In this case, GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Civil Aeronautics Board to operate an air transportation service. Philippine Airlines (PAL) opposed this, arguing that a legislative franchise was required per the Constitution. However, the Court ruled that a legislative franchise is not required for a CPCN. The use of the word "necessity" in a CPCN does not modify the requirements or nature of the certification. Congress delegated authority to the Board to issue permits for domestic air transport and determine operators' capabilities through R

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views2 pages

    PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997 (DIGEST) - KRV

    Uploaded by

    Khenlie Villaceran
    The document discusses the case PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997. In this case, GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Civil Aeronautics Board to operate an air transportation service. Philippine Airlines (PAL) opposed this, arguing that a legislative franchise was required per the Constitution. However, the Court ruled that a legislative franchise is not required for a CPCN. The use of the word "necessity" in a CPCN does not modify the requirements or nature of the certification. Congress delegated authority to the Board to issue permits for domestic air transport and determine operators' capabilities through R

    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 2

    Regulation of Public Utilities : CPC v CPCN: Relate the above case to

    the following statutes R.A. 9183; R.A. 9517

    The terms “convenience and necessity,” if used together in a statute, are


    usually held not to be separable, but are construed together—both words
    modify each other.

    PAL vs. CAB, G.R. No. 119528 March 26, 1997

    Facts:

    Private respondent GrandAir applied for a Certificate of Public


    Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the Civil Aeronautics Board
    (CAB) or issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit (TOP).

    Petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), supports its petition alleging


    that GrandAir does not possess a legislative franchise authorizing it to
    engage in air transportation service within the Philippines or elsewhere.
    That such franchise is, allegedly, a requisite for the issuance of a
    Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity by the respondent Board,
    as mandated under Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution.

    GrandAir, on the other hand, posits that a legislative franchise is no


    longer a requirement for the issuance of a CPCN or a TOP. Subsequently,
    the CAB approved the issuance of a TOP in favor of Grand Air. In its
    Resolution, the Board justify its assumption of jurisdiction over
    GrandAir's application.

    In its petition, PAL argues that since R.A. 776 gives the Board the
    authority to issue "Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity",
    this, according to petitioner, means that a legislative franchise is an
    absolute requirement. It cites a number of authorities supporting the
    view that a CPCN is issued to a public service for which a franchise is
    required by law, as distinguished from a Certificate of Public
    Convenience (CPC) which is an authorization issued for the operation of
    public services for which no franchise, either municipal or legislative, is
    required by law.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) is


    to be distinguished with Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC).

    Ruling:
    No. The Court held that, the use of the word "necessity", in conjunction with "public
    convenience" in a certificate of authorization to a public service entity to operate, does
    not in any way modify the nature of such certification, or the requirements for the
    issuance of the same. It is the law which determines the requisites for the issuance of
    such certification, and not the title indicating the certificate.

    In the case, by R.A. No. 776, the Congress has delegated to the respondent Board the
    power to issue permits for the operation of domestic transport services and to determine
    the capability and competence of a prospective domestic air transport operator to engage
    in such venture.

    Hence, respondent Board should be allowed to continue hearing the application of


    GrandAir for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, there
    being no legal obstacle to the exercise of its jurisdiction.

    You might also like