Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc. vs. Mun. of Morong - Rizal Light Ice Co Inc vs Mun of Morong Rizal 25 SCRA 285 No L-20993 No L-21221

Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc. vs. Mun. of Morong - Rizal...

This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.

Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc. vs. Mun. of Morong, Rizal 25 SCRA 285, No. L-20993, No. L-21221 September 28, 1968 Protection-of-investment rule"; When not applicable; Paramount consideration in the grant of certificate of public convenience; To whom duty to protect investment of a public utility operator refers .— The "protection-of-investment rule" was enunciated in Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes. 52 Phil. 455, in this wise: "The Government having taken over the control and supervision of all public utilities, so long as an operator under a prior license complies with the terms and conditions of his license and reasonable rules and regulations for its operation and meets the reasonable demands of the public, it is the duty of the Commission to protect rather than to destroy his investment by the granting of the second license to another person for the same thing over the same route of travel. The granting of such a license does not serve its convenience or promote the interests of the public." The above-quoted rule, however. is not absolute, f or nobody has exclusive right to secure a
Image of page 1

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read the whole page?

  • Fall '16
  • The Commission, Public utility, public utility operator, paramount consideration, protection-of-investment rule

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture