UP Law F2021 002 Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transportation Co.

Administrative Law Constitutional Consideration 1932 Malcolm

SUMMARY

MERALCO prayed that SC, as board of arbitrators, fix the terms of the of the franchise granted under Act No.
1146 as provided under Sec. 11 of said Act. The SC held that the Sec. 11 was unconstitutional, and refused to
sit as board of arbitrators and fix the terms of franchise.

FACTS

▪ Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) filed the instant case involving Act No. 14461;
▪ MERALCO prayed the Court to sit as board of arbitrators and fix the terms of the franchise granted
under the Act to it and other several transportation companies;
▪ MERALCO argued that such power was expressly conferred to the SC as provided in Section 112 .

RATIO

W/N the Supreme Court has the power to sit as Board of Arbitrators and fix the terms of the
franchise granted under the Act (Alternatively, W/N Sec. 11 is constitutional)
No.

It is judicial power and judicial power only which is exercised by the Supreme Court. The functions to be
performed by the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, be considered as
administrative or quasi judicial in nature, that would result in the performance of duties which the
members of the Supreme Court could not lawfully take it upon themselves to perform. A board of
arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper sense of the term, and possess none of the jurisdiction which the
Organic Act contemplates shall be exercised by the Supreme Court.

FALLO

As a result, the members of the Supreme Court decline to proceed further in the matter.

1
“An Act granting a franchise to Charles M. Swift to construct, maintain, and operate an electric railway, and to construct, maintain,
and operate an electric light, heat, and power system from a point in the City of Manila in an easterly direction to the town in Pasig, in
the Province of Rizal”
2
Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to any other person or corporation, now or hereafter in existence, over portions of
the lines and tracks of the grantee herein, the terms on which said other person or corporation shall use such right of way, and the
compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed by the members of the
Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall be final."