G.R. No. L-10372. May 14, 1958

This is the appeal of A.L. Ammen Transportation Co, (Alatco for short) from
the decision of the Public Service Commission granting Francisco Desuyo’s
request for a new certificate of public convenience to continue operating^[1] his TPU autotruck service along the lines
Bacon-Bulan via Boton (all in Sorsogon province) and Bacon-Tiwi (Sorsogon and
Albay provinces).

The first route covering a distance of 73 kilometers passes through Sorsogon
(municipality) Casiguran, Juban and Irosin, in that order. The second covers 110
kilometers passing through Sorsogon, Guinlajong, Castilla, Putico, Daraga,
Legaspi, Libog, Manlilipot, Tabaco and Malinao.

The grant was issued after regular hearing upon proper application, despite
Alatco’s opposition.

According to the Commission, petitioner’s evidence showed that “numerous
merchants, farmers, employees, students and other travelers made trips on the
line applied for; that quite frequently TPU vehicles serving these lines were
either full or overloaded with passengers and many other travelers along the
road could not readily be accommodated in passing TPU vehicles.”

The above findings rested on the testimony of Jose Dacog, a lumber dealer of
Sorsogon, who had frequently travelled along the Sorsogon-Bulan or the
Bacon-Bulan roads, and of Jose Bansale, a resident of Tabaco, who was engaged in
buying and selling fish, and had to journey along the Legaspi-Tiwi routes, and
who had also travelled often to Sorsogon.

They also rested on the sworn statements of Francisco Desuyo who spoke of his
trips from Sorsogon to Legaspi as follows:

“Q.- On the road from Sorsogon to Legaspi, what passenger cars do you see
along the road?”

“A. – Many of them: Alatco, Nicol, Soriano, Margallo and other operators,
operating pick ups”

” x x x x.”

“A.- I always observe that these cars coming from Legaspi which I meet on
the way are filled with passengers, some of them being overloaded. It is because
the barrios along the way from Legaspi to Sorsogon are very thickly populated,
and there are always plenty of passengers in these barrios along the
way.”

In line with our policy of non-interference with the findings of the
Commission where some evidence reasonably supports its findings as to necessity
and convenience of the authorized public utility, we must decline in this appeal
to overrule the Commission determination. Specially is this so where Alatco’s
very witness, Rufino Soler, in the words of the Commission, “admitted that the
services of the oppositor and other TFU operators in that region are not
adequate to meet the demand of travelers on the lines applied for, because they
do not operate direct or continuous trips on these lines,” unlike the applicant
in this case. The aforesaid witness deposed:

“Q. -Are these operators, other than Desuyo, able to meet the demand of the
riding public along the lines from Bacon to Bulan and vice versa and from Bacon
to Tiwi via Legaspi and vice versa?”

“A. – No.”

“Q.- What do you mean by your answer no?”

“A.-Because there are no operators operating directly from Bacon to Legaspi
and Bacon to Bulan.”

And there is no question that Alatco does not undertake direct trips from
Bacon to Bulan, nor from Bacon to Tiwi via Legaspi, its lines being those of
Sorsogon-Bacon, Sorsogon-Bulan, Sorsogon-Legaspi, Legaspi-Tabaco and
Tabaco-Tiwi.

No argument is needed to show that one long continuous trip serves the
traveler’s convenience better than several short trips, what with the
elimination of the cumbersome and expensive transfers from one bus to another at
the terminals of the connecting lines.

On the business aspect of the matter, the Commission must have thought,
properly indeed, that if after five years’ service the petitioner, still in good
financial position, wished to continue and the Alatco exhibited no adverse
effects from his competing activities, there must have been no ruinous
competition in that area, with sufficient room for the simultaneous operation of
both transportation services – for the benefit, naturally, of those who may need
accommodation for themselves and/or their merchandise. Needless to add, “public
convenience must have the first consideration,” (San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53
Phil. 539.)

There being no clear error nor abuse of discretion in the appealed decision,
the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1]He had benn operating for five years
under a proper permit along the same lines.