COMMON CARRIERS: General Considerations - Definition Dispositive

02 US vs. TAN PIACO Therefore, the sentence of the lower court is hereby revoked, and it is
March 10, 1920 | Johnson J. | hereby ordered and decreed that the complaint be dismissed and that the
Doctrine and Barebones: defendant be absolved from all liability under the same, and that he be
discharged from the custody of the law, without any finding as to costs.
Facts: So ordered.
● Defendants Tan Piaco et al. were charged with violation of Public Notes
Utility Law as they were allegedly operating a public utility without the
permission of the Public Utility Commissioner.
● The TC found the evidence insufficient to support the charges
against them and so absolved the other defendants Estuya,
Homeres, Galsa, and Lepando from liability. Tan Piaco, however,
was found guilty.
● Tan Piaco allegedly rented 2 trucks and used them for carrying
passengers and freight under a special contract in each case, and
that he had not held himself out to carry all passengers and all
freight for all persons who might offer passengers and freight.
Issue:
W/N Tan Piaco was a Public Utility and therefore subject to control by
the Public Utility Commission.
Held:
NO, he is not considered as public utility.
● Based on the evidence, Tan Piaco furnished service under special
agreements to carry persons and property. These persons have
controlled the whole vehicles both as to contents, direction, and time
of use which takes Tan Piaco out of the Public Utility Act.
● The term 'public utility' is hereby defined to include every individual,
co-partnership, association, corporation or joint stock company, etc.,
etc., that now or hereafter may own, operate, manage, or control any
common carrier, railroad, street railway, etc., etc., engaged in the
transportation of passengers, cargo, etc., etc., for public use."
● Under this definition, it is necessary that (1) The individual or co-
partnership must be a public utility
● The essential feature of public use is that it is not confined to
privileged individuals but is open to the indefinite public.
● To determine W/N it is Public Use, the character of the business to
be done must be looked at and its proposed mode of doing it.
● If the use is optional, or the public benefit incidental, it is NOT public
use.
● There must be a right which the law compels the owner to give
to the general public.
● Public use is NOT synonymous to Public Interest; the true criterion
by which to judge the character of the use is W/N the public may
enjoy it by right or permission.