What you allow will continue.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Goodevening.

I am in the affirmative side with the motion that since the property in questioned is clothed with
public interest i.e. A voluntary easement for the benefit of the community as what the first
speaker had tackled. It is safe to say that it is unlawful to make arbitrary exceptions with respect
to its use and enjoyment. Hence, the injunction is improper.
It is well established that the intention of the plaintiff that the road shall be accessible to the
general public, regardless of what class or group of persons. That in cases of motor vehicle, a
passage fee of P.15 (cents) should be paid.
Having been devoted to the use of public in general, upon paying the passage fees required in
the case of motor vehicles, the plaintiff may not establish discriminatory exceptions against
public person.x
What is discrimination?
DISCRIMINATION. a term used to deny someone the equal protection of the laws and to treat
all people the same. (Blacks Law Dictionary)
Why the discrimination? What is the root of this after all?
It has been said that in the case at bar, upon the amended information, it was merely baseless
and no real damage against plaintiffs rights were violated that there was false imputation of the
facts, hence there was no legal action.
What is the allegation?
It has been said that the plaintiff here seeks to prohibit the defendant not from selling tuba at
his Store in Hacienda Sangay, but from passing through its property to introduce tuba of which
the plaintiffs laborers becomes drunk.
Did the allegation constitute a legal action? Clearly, No. The selling of tuba is a legitimate
business. There was no proven real damage against the third person. That logically, the plaintiff
upon knowing that his laborers is drunk shall impose penalties deemed to be proper within the
organization but not with an injunction.
When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in
effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public
for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his
grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the
control. (Munn vs. Illinois, 94 U. S., 113; 24 Law. ed., 77.)
. . . If the service is dedicated to the public or some portion thereof, or to persons within a given
area, then any member of the public or of the given class, or any person within the given area,
may demand such service without discrimination, and the public, or so much of it as has occasion
to be served, is entitled to the service of the utility as a matter of right, and not of grace. . . . A
corporation becomes a public service corporation, and therefore subject to regulation as a public
utility, only when and to the extent that the business of such corporation becomes devoted to a
public use. . . . (Stoehr vs. Natatorium Co. 200 Pac. [Idaho], 132, quoted in 18 A. L. R., 766.)
The language in this case is, the owner by devoting his business to the public use, in effect,
grants the public an interest, although the property continues to belong to its private owner,
and to be entitled to protection accordingly.
When private property is devoted to public use in the business of a public utility, certain
reciprocal rights and duties are raised by implication of law between the utility and the public it
undertakes to serve, and no contract between them is necessary to give rise thereto. . . . (51
C. J., sec. 12 p. 6.)
With that being said, as a conclusion, the discrimination is misplaced. The defendant can pass
through the said land as matter of right as a part of the community that is rooted with the right
of passage.