Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 593 views

    15red Line Transport vs. Rural Transit (60 Phil 549)

    Uploaded by

    zane
    This case involves a dispute between two transportation companies - Red Line Transportation Co. and Rural Transit Co. Rural Transit applied for a certificate of public convenience to expand its bus route. Red Line opposed, arguing this would constitute ruinous competition. The commission initially approved Rural Transit's application. However, it was later revealed that Rural Transit had been dissolved and the real applicant was Bachrach Motor Co., which was improperly using Rural Transit's name. The commission concluded that a corporation cannot assume the name of another existing corporation as a trade name. Therefore, the order granting the certificate to "Rural Transit" was vacated since it was not the real party in interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    15red Line Transport vs. Rural Transit (60 Phil 549)

    Uploaded by

    zane
    593 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute between two transportation companies - Red Line Transportation Co. and Rural Transit Co. Rural Transit applied for a certificate of public convenience to expand its bus route. Red Line opposed, arguing this would constitute ruinous competition. The commission initially approved Rural Transit's application. However, it was later revealed that Rural Transit had been dissolved and the real applicant was Bachrach Motor Co., which was improperly using Rural Transit's name. The commission concluded that a corporation cannot assume the name of another existing corporation as a trade name. Therefore, the order granting the certificate to "Rural Transit" was vacated since it was not the real party in interest.

    Original Title

    15Red Line Transport vs. Rural Transit (60 Phil 549)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute between two transportation companies - Red Line Transportation Co. and Rural Transit Co. Rural Transit applied for a certificate of public convenience to expand its bus route. Red Line opposed, arguing this would constitute ruinous competition. The commission initially approved Rural Transit's application. However, it was later revealed that Rural Transit had been dissolved and the real applicant was Bachrach Motor Co., which was improperly using Rural Transit's name. The commission concluded that a corporation cannot assume the name of another existing corporation as a trade name. Therefore, the order granting the certificate to "Rural Transit" was vacated since it was not the real party in interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    593 views2 pages

    15red Line Transport vs. Rural Transit (60 Phil 549)

    Uploaded by

    zane
    This case involves a dispute between two transportation companies - Red Line Transportation Co. and Rural Transit Co. Rural Transit applied for a certificate of public convenience to expand its bus route. Red Line opposed, arguing this would constitute ruinous competition. The commission initially approved Rural Transit's application. However, it was later revealed that Rural Transit had been dissolved and the real applicant was Bachrach Motor Co., which was improperly using Rural Transit's name. The commission concluded that a corporation cannot assume the name of another existing corporation as a trade name. Therefore, the order granting the certificate to "Rural Transit" was vacated since it was not the real party in interest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    September 6, 1934

    RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO.


    vs.
    RURAL TRANSIT CO., LTD

    Facts:

    This case began when Rural Transit Co,a Philippine corporation, filed with the PSC
    an application in which it is stated in substance that it is the holder of a certificate or
    public convenience to operate a passenger bus service between Manila and
    Tuguegarao; that it is the only operator of direct service between said points and the
    present authorized schedule of only one trip daily is not sufficient; that it will be also
    to the public convenience to grant the applicant a certificate for a new service
    between Tuguegarao and Ilagan.

    Thereafter, Red Line Transportation Company, filed an opposition to the said


    application alleging it would not serve public convenience but would constitute a
    ruinous competition for the oppositor over said route.

    After testimony was taken, the commission, approved the application of the Rural
    Transit Company, Ltd., and ordered that the certificate of public convenience applied
    for be "issued to the applicant Rural Transit Company, Ltd.,"

    On January 14, 1933, the oppositor Red Line Transportation Company filed a motion
    for rehearing and reconsideration. Upon the hearing of the motion for
    reconsideration, the commission admitted without objection the the decision of the
    CFIdecreeing the dissolution of the Rural Transit Company, Ltd.

    At the trial of this case before the Public Service Commission an issue was raised as
    to who was the real party in interest making the application, whether the Rural
    Transit Company, Ltd., as appeared on the face of the application, or the Bachrach
    Motor Company, Inc., using name of the Rural Transit Company, Ltd., as a trade
    name.

    Issue: Whether or not a vorporation, such as Rural Transit can assume the name of
    another corporation as a trade name?

    Conclusion:
    The incorporators "constitute a body politic and corporate under the name stated in
    the certificate." (Section 11, Act No. 1459, as amended.) A corporation has the
    power "of succession by its corporate name." (Section 13, ibid.) The name of a
    corporation is therefore essential to its existence. It cannot change its name except
    in the manner provided by the statute. By that name alone is it authorized to transact
    business. The law gives a corporation no express or implied authority to assume
    another name that is unappropriated: still less that of another corporation, which is
    expressly set apart for it and protected by the law. If any corporation could assume
    at pleasure as an unregistered trade name the name of another corporation, this
    practice would result in confusion and open the door to frauds and evasions and
    difficulties of administration and supervision. The policy of the law expressed in our
    corporation statute and the Code of Commerce is clearly against such a practice.

    The order of the commission authorizing the Bachrach Motor Co., Incorporated, to
    assume the name of the Rural Transit Co., Ltd. likewise in corporated, as its trade
    name being void, and accepting the order of December 21, 1932, at its face as
    granting a certificate of public convenience to the applicant Rural Transit Co., Ltd.,
    the said order last mentioned is set aside and vacated on the ground that the Rural
    Transit Company, Ltd., is not the real party in interest and its application was
    fictitious.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy