Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest
(270 SCRA 538)
Facts: Grand Air applied for a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity with the Civil Aeronautics
Board (CAB). The Chief Hearing Officer issued a
notice of hearing directing Grand Air to serve a copy
of the application and notice to all scheduled
Philippine Domestic operators. Grand Air filed its
compliance and requested for a Temporary Operating
Permit (TOP). PAL filed an opposition to the
application on the ground that the CAB had no
jurisdiction to hear the application until Grand Air first
obtains a franchise to operate from Congress. The
Chief Hearing Officer denied the opposition and the
CAB approved the issuance of the TOP for a period of
3 months. The opposition for the TOP was likewise
denied. The CAB justified its assumption of
jurisdiction over Grand Airs application on the basis
of Republic Act 776 which gives it the specific power
to issue any TOP or Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity.
Issue: Whether or not the CAB can issue a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity or TOP even
though the prospective operator does not have a
legislative franchise?
Held: Yes, as mentioned by the CAB, it is duly
authorized to do so under Republic Act 776 and a
legislative franchise is not necessary before it may do
so, since Congress has delegated the authority to
authorize the operation of domestic air transport
services to the CAB, an administrative agency. The
delegation of such authority is not without limits since
Congress had set specific standard and limitations on
how such authority should be exercised.
Public convenience and necessity exists when the
proposed facility will meet a reasonable want of the
public and supply a need which the existing facilities
do not adequately afford.
Thus, the Board should be allowed to continue
hearing the application, since it has jurisdiction over it
provided that the applicant meets all the requirements
of the law.
MAPA VS C-A (275-286)
Mapa purchased from TWA Trans World Airlines 2
airline tickets in Bankok Thailand, for Los AngelesNew York Boston St. Louis Chicago, all of the
USA. The domicile of the carrier TWA was Kansas
City, Missouri USA, Where its principal place of
business was likewise located. The place of business
of TWA where the contract was made was in Bangkok
Thailand. The place of destination was Chicago-USA.
The MAPAS left Manila on board Pal for L-A, They left
checked in 7 pieces of luggages at TWA counter at
JFK airport but failed to board the plane because they
went to the wrong gate. Hey were however allowed to
take a later TWA plane to Boston which was delayed
because of the thunder storm. Upon arrival at boston
they were only retrieved 3 out of 7 luggages which
loss was immediately reported to TWA with a total
value of S 2,560 as constituting full satisfaction of
their claim which the MAPAS accepted as partial
payment for the actual loss of their baggages.