FACTS:

This case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court awarding damages in favor of respondent Lungsod Silangan Transport Services Corp., Inc. (Lungsod Corp. for brevity). Lungsod Corp. was granted a certificate of public convenience to operate a jeepney service on the Cogeo-Cubao route in 1983.

The defendant-Association was registered as a non-stock, non-profit organization with the purpose of representing Lungsod Corp. and its members in their contracts and agreements regarding the ownership of units. However, the Association protested against Lungsod Corp.'s adoption of a Bandera System, where members were allowed to queue for passengers in exchange for a ticket worth twenty pesos, and decided to form a human barricade to assume the dispatching of passenger jeepneys.

Lungsod Corp. filed a suit for damages, and the trial court awarded damages in its favor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the award of damages. The petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Association was not formed to compete with Lungsod Corp. but to protect drivers from abusive traffic officers and to address the practice of requiring jeepney owners to execute deeds of sale in favor of Lungsod Corp.

The main issue raised by the petitioner is whether or not the petitioner usurped the property right of the respondent, which shall entitle the latter to the award of nominal damages.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner usurped the property right of the respondent.

2. Whether or not the respondent is entitled to the award of nominal damages.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the petitioner did usurp the property right of the respondent, entitling the latter to the award of nominal damages. The Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which both ruled in favor of the respondent and awarded damages. The Court found that the association formed by the petitioner was competing with the respondent corporation in its operation as a common carrier. The association assumed the dispatching of passenger jeepneys and formed a human barricade against the respondent. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the association was formed for the common protection of drivers, stating that the association was organized to represent the respondent for whatever contract and/or agreement it will have regarding the ownership of units. Thus, the Court ruled that the actions of the petitioner constituted a usurpation of the respondent's property right.

PRINCIPLES:

• Under the Public Service Law, a certificate of public convenience is an authorization issued by the Public Service Commission for the operation of public services for which no franchise is required by law.