G.R. No. L-4816. March 23, 1954

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Public Service Commission.

On September 29, 1950, Adolfo C. Mortola applied to the Public
Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to operate
an auto-truck service in the provinces Agusan and Surigao in the Island
of Mindanao in Case No. 58688 of said Commission, using the lines from
Cabadbaran to Surigao, to Butuan, to Jabonga, and to several barrios of
Butuan and Cabadbaran.

The application was set for hearing on November 10, 1950 in Manila.
The Surigao Express Company and the Agusan-Surigao Bus Company, which
operate passenger buses in Agusan and Surigao, filed written opposition
on the ground that there was no public demand for an increase in
transportation facilities, and that the granting of the application
would cause ruinous competition to the oppositors.

On November 10, 1950, on petition of the applicant, the justice of
the peace of Cabadbaran, Agusan, was authorized by the Commission to
receive the testimony of the witnesses of the applicant and of the
oppositors in the form of depositions, in accordance with Rule 18 of
the Rules of Court. The hearing was held before the justice of the
peace on January 3, 1951.

On April 24, 1951, the Commission rendered a decision granting the application.

The Surigao Express Company has filed with this Court a petition for review of said decision.

The applicant presented documentary evidence as to his financial
condition consisting of real property of the assessed value of P11,180,
which he would not sell even for P50,000.

The applicant introduced oral testimony to prove that the buses of
the Surigao Express Company could not accommodate all passengers,
leaving on several occasions many persons on the roads and other
passengers had to cling to the sides of the trucks, which were
overcrowded.

On the other hand, the Surigao Express Company presented evidence
tending to show that only fifty percent or less of the seating capacity
of its buses was being used by the traveling public along the lines
above mentioned.

The Commission from the evidence submitted, made the following findings:

That there is a great number of passengers and a big amount of
freight on the lines applied for by Mortola; that Butuan and Surigao
are ports to which are brought from Cebu, Bohol, Mambajao, Leyte, and
other places a great number of emigrants, who work in the saw-mills;
that the population of Cabadbaran has increased considerably after the
war; that there are two high schools and one college in Cabadbaran
which many students attend; that there are a great number of passengers
on the lines of Cabadbaran-Surigao and Cabadbaran-Butuan consisting of
merchants, students, and farmers; that many passengers wait for
transportation along the way who cannot be accommodated in the trucks
operating on the lines above referred to, and that these trucks are
very often overloaded to such an extent that the passengers have to
cling to the sides of the trucks, especially during the market days
when there is a great amount of traffic; that these lines are crossed
by feeder roads from many places in the interior of the Island; that,
in a word, the buses of the oppositor are not sufficient in number and
capacity to accommodate the passengers and the cargo; that the
applicant has sufficient capital to run the business applied for.

The petitioner attacks these findings of the court on the ground
that they are not reasonably supported by the evidence, and that no
member of the Commission saw and heard the witnesses, because the trial
was held by the justice of the peace.

In the first place, the Commission had the authority to assign a
justice of the peace to hear the evidence under Rule 18, and that there
was no objection on the part of the oppositors when the trial was held.

This Court cannot substitute its own findings of fact to those made
by the Commission, unless the findings of the latter are not reasonably
supported by the evidence of record. We find that on the whole the
evidence submitted to the Commission, through the justice of the peace,
affords more than reasonable support to the findings of the Commission.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Public Service
Commission is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So
ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concur.