FACTS: This case is before us on a petition for review of an order of the

Public Service Commission entered December 21, 1932. n !une ", 1932, the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., a Philippine corporation, filed with the Public Compan$ Service Commission an application in which it is stated in substance that it is the holder of a certificate or public convenience to operate a passen&er bus service between 'anila and Tu&ue&arao.

n !ul$ 22, 1932, the appellant, #ed %ine Transportation Compan$, filed an opposition to the said application. That the &rantin& of the application of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., would not serve public convenience but would constitute a ruinous competition for the oppositor over said route. n December 21, 1932, approved the application of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., and ordered that the certificate of public convenience applied for be (issued to the applicant #ural Transit Compan$, %td.,( with the condition, amon& others, that (all the other terms and conditions of the various certificates of public convenience of the herein applicant and herein incorporated are made a part hereof. n !anuar$ 1", 1933, the oppositor #ed %ine Transportation Compan$ filed a motion for rehearin& and reconsideration in which it called the commission)s attention to the fact that there was pendin& in the Court of *irst +nstance of 'anila case ,. "23"3. n 'arch 23, 1933, the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., the applicant, filed a motion for postponement. This motion was verified b$ '. lsen who swears (that he was the secretar$ of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., in the above entitled case. +n the Court of *irst +nstance of 'anila for the dissolution of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td. the petition for dissolution dated !ul$ -, 1932, the decision of the said Court of *irst +nstance of 'anila, dated *ebruar$ 2., 1933, decreein& the dissolution of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td. /t the trial of this case before the Public Service Commission an issue was raised as to who was the real part$ in interest ma0in& the application, whether the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., as appeared on the face of the application, or the 1achrach 'otor Compan$, +nc., usin& name of the #ural

Transit Compan$, %td., as a trade name. The evidence &iven b$ the applicant)s secretar$, lsen, is certainl$ ver$ dubious and confusin&. The 1achrach 'otor Compan$, +nc., entered no appearance and ostensibl$ too0 no part in the hearin& of the application of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td. 2owever, the hearin& proceeded on the application as filed and the decision of December 2, 1932, was rendered in favor of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., and the certificate ordered to be issued in its name, in the face of the evidence that the said corporation was not the real part$ in interest. +n its said decision, the commission undertoo0 to meet the ob3ection b$ referrin& to its resolution of ,ovember 2-, 1932, entered in another case.
ISSUE: Whether or not PSC can empower a corporation to assume the name of another corporation as a trade name? HELD: No. 4e 0now of no law that empowers the Public Service

Commission or an$ court in this 3urisdiction to authori5e one corporation to assume the name of another corporation as a trade name. 1oth the #ural Transit Compan$, %td., and the 1achrach 'otor Co., +nc., are Philippine corporations and the ver$ law of their creation and continued e6istence re7uires each to adopt and certif$ a distinctive name. The incorporators (constitute a bod$ politic and corporate under the name stated in the certificate.( 8Section 11, /ct ,o. 1"99, as amended.: The law &ives a corporation no e6press or implied authorit$ to assume another name that is unappropriated; still less that of another corporation, which is e6pressl$ set apart for it and protected b$ the law. The polic$ of the law e6pressed in our corporation statute and the Code of Commerce is clearl$ a&ainst such a practice. The order of the commission of ,ovember 2-, 1932, authori5in& the 1achrach 'otor Co., +ncorporated, to assume the name of the #ural Transit Co., %td. li0ewise in corporated, as its trade name bein& void, and acceptin& the order of December 21, 1932, at its face as &rantin& a certificate of public convenience to the applicant #ural Transit Co., %td. +n view of the dissolution of the #ural Transit Compan$, %td. b$ 3udicial decree of *ebruar$ 2., 1933, we do not see how we can assess costs a&ainst said respondent, #ural Transit Compan$, %td.