Case Digest: Manila Electric Co vs Commissioners, 30 Phil 387

Manila Electric Co vs Commissioners, 30 Phil 387

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

The city of Manila in the year 1903, by authority of Act No. 484, for a valuable consideration, and in and by virtue of its ordinance No. 44, granted to Charles M. Swift a franchise for the construction and maintenance of a street railway system for carrying passengers for hire in the city of Manila. Swift immediately assigned his interest in the franchise to the Manila Electric Railroad and Light Company, which is now operating, and for more than nine years has operated, an electric street railway system in the city of Manila and its suburbs for the carriage of passengers for hire.

Among other things, the franchise, as set out in ordinance 44, contains the following provision: "Members of the police and fire departments of the city of Manila wearing official badges shall be entitled to ride free upon the cars of the grantee, subject to such reasonable and proper restrictions as may be imposed."

In May 1914, the chief of the secret service bureau sought to obtain a reversal of this long-established practice and accordingly made a petition to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners alleging that the street-car company, in requiring the badges of the secret service members of the police force to be worn visibly during the period of transportation, was imposing an unreasonable and unlawful restriction on the transportation of the members of the police department. Following a hearing on this petition, the Board of Public Utility Commissioners made the order objected to and ordered MERALCO to furnish free transportation to the members of the police department of the city of Manila, belonging to the secret service bureau thereof, wearing their official badges, whether openly or concealed about their clothing in such a way that said badges may be displayed to conductors or inspectors on the company’s cars when required to do so for purposes of identification.

The company in this proceeding has raised many questions relative to the jurisdiction, authority, and power of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners.

ISSUE

Whether or not to adopt the amended Ordinance No. 44 made by the Board of Public Utility Commissioners.

RULING

No.

Under the law (Art 1371, NCC), in order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.

Such interpretation of the parties should not be the interpretation by the court, because “the courts are not at liberty to adopt a construction opposed to that which the parties have placed on their contract.” The order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners is vacated, set aside, and annulled.