Facts:
1. Qualitrans Limousine Service, Inc., was the grantee of a certificate of public convenience issued by the defunct Board of Transportation to operate a "garage (tourist) air-conditioned service" from Manila t any point in Luzon
2. A decision by the BOT amended the certificate for garage service into one for limousine tourist service for the transportation of all outgoing passengers of the Manila International Airport
3. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by private respondent with Transcare, Inc., a duly licensed limousine service operator and likewise, a holder of a certificate of public convenience.
4. By virtue of said sale, the franchise granted to Transcare, Inc. for the use of 40 units of tourist cars was sold to private respondent.
5. On December 27, 1985, upon application filed for the approval of aforementioned sale, an Order was issued by the Land Transportation Commission granting a provisional permit in favor of private respondent (Annexes C and 3, CA-G.R. SP No. 10049); Annexes B and 3 CA-G.R. No. 10370-SP). The prefatory portion thereof states: The application filed in this case is for the approval of sale made by TRANSCARE, INC., in favor of ROYAL CLASS LIMOUSINE SERVICE of the Certificate of Public Convenience issued in Case Nos. 81-4405 and 82-415 authorizing the operation of a TOURIST CAR (AIR-CONDITIONED) SERVICE within the New Manila International Airport and from said place to any point in the Island of Luzon accessible to motor vehicle traffic and vice-versa, involving the right to operate forty (40) units authorized therein. ... (Emphasis supplied).
6. Petitioner argues that the application filed by private respondent was for the route from the "New Manila International Airport to hotels and from said hotels to any point in Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic and vice-versa", and not from the "New Manila International Airport ... to any point in the Island of Luzon.”
7. Petitioner claims that respondent has been soliciting passengers from the New Manila International Airport to transport them to any point in Luzon to the prejudice of petitioner's business. 8. Essentially, petitioner’s main contention is that they should be the only business to be offering that particular service. Issue: Is petitioner’s contention correct?
Held:
NO, it is not.
Ratio:
> Under the constitution, it is to the best interest of the public to have two or more companies in the field to stimulate business and prevent monopolies pursuant to the constitutional mandate of equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth, and regulation of competition and prohibition of monopolies.
> the Court finds it "hard to conceive how it would be for the best interests of the public" 17, to have one line only, "and how the public would be injured by the granting of the certificate in question, for it must be conceded that two companies in the field would stimulate the business
> It is simply bellyaching to say that Royal Class had transcended the bounds of the certificate of public convenience granted to it. What Qualitrans is plainly carping about is the threat the Royal Class' certificate of public convenience poses on its foothold in the "limo" service business. This is monopolism, plainly and simply, and we cannot tolerate it.
> There is no merit in the claims that Royal Class has been guilty of unfair competition. For starters, its Certificate of Public Convenience has been duly issued. The CPC cannot therefore be said to have been acquired through duress or deceit to warrant such a charge.
> Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition must be dismissed.
