MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. FRANCISCO JAVIER, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This
is another appeal taken by the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., from
the decision of the Public Service Commission granting Francicso Javier
a certificate to operate midget taxicabs in the City of Manila, its
suburbs, and in the neighboring provinces of Bulacan, Rizal and Cavite,
on a tariff rate of ten (10) and five (5) centavos. The dispositive
part of the decision reads as follows:

“In
view of the foregoing, and after a careful consideration of the
evidence, the commission, after overruling all the oppositions
presented in this case, arrived at the conclusion that the certificate
of public convenience applied for, should be granted and that its
issuance, upon the conditions hereinafter set forth, will adequately
promote the public interests as required in par. (i) of section 15 of
Act No. 3108. Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that the
corresponding certificate of public convenience be issued upon payment
of the fees fixed by law, subject to the following conditions:

“1.
That Francisco Javier shall operate a public transportation service
consisting of 25 Austin cars (Midget Motor Propelled Vehicles) known as
taxicabs, having a capacity of four (4) passengers each, including
driver, without any fixed route or terminal within the City of Manila
and between the City of Manila and adjacent towns in the provinces of
Bulacan, Rizal and Cavite, whenever the service so demands. * * *”

The
applicant-appellee instituted case No. 29712 praying that he be
permitted to operate small Austin cars known as “Midget Taxicabs”, in
the City of Manila, its suburbs, and in the neighboring provinces. The
appellant, Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., and Aero Taxicab Co., Inc.,
E. Vesnan, the Municipal Board of the City of Manila, Pasay
Transportation Co., Julio Danon and Fausto Barredo, filed their
oppositions to the application. After hearing, the commission rendered
its decision from which only the first two oppositors appealed. The
opposition of Aero Taxicab Co., Inc., however, was dismissed upon
motion of the appellee for failure of the said oppositor to file a
motion for re- consideration or new trial during the pendency of the
case in the Public Service Commission.

The judgment appealed
from is signed by two of the commissioners, from which the other
commissioner dissented. The facts established herein and considered by
this court as controlling for the purposes of this decision are
summarized in the aforesaid appealed decision as follows:

“From
the foregoing, it appears that the proposed service, if authorized,
will adequately promote the public interests in a proper and suitable
manner, for it will not only answer a pressing demand of the residents
of Manila, especially those of moderate means who cannot afford the
present rates charged by the existing’ taxicabs, garage and PU cars,
but at the same time, will modernize our mode of transportation in the
city by the consequent gradual elimination of carromatas and carretelas.
Manila, with its growing importance as a trade center not only of the
Archipelago but of the Far East, the progress made by its commerce and
industry, and the increase in number of its educational institutions in
the past ten years, has attracted and continues to attract people from
all parts of the Archipelago, thousands and thousands of students,
laborers and merchants who have contributed to the rapid urbanization
of the different corners of the City of Manila which, ten years ago,
were vacant, muddy and swampy lots and have now been transformed into
well populated suburbs. All of these have contributed to make the
traffic problem in the city more difficult and more complex, and the
operation of the proposed service within the city will doubtlessly help
to modernize our transportation system and solve the difficult problems
of regulating and relieving traffic congestion in the City of Manila.”

The appellant assigns the following alleged errors:

“I.
The Public Service Commission erred in granting a certificate of public
convenience to the applicant, Francisco Javier, because:

“(a) It was not shown that the present taxicab service in the City of Manila is inadequate, insufficient or unsatisfactory;

“(b)
The proposed business will constitute a ruinous competition with the
business of the established prior operators, Manila Yellow Taxicab Co.,
Inc., and Aero Taxicab Co., Inc.;

“(c) It was not shown that the public interests will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by granting the certificate; and

“(d)
If the commission believed that public convenience requires the
operation of midget taxicabs, it should have first required the present
operators, Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., and Aero Taxicab Co., Inc.,
to operate such midget taxicabs before giving a certificate to a
newcomer.

“II. The Public Service Commission erred in permitting Judge Vicente de Vera to take part in the decision of this case.

“III. The Public Service Commission erred in denying the motion for reconsideration and rehearing.”

With regard to the first assignment of error, we agree with the
applicant that this case is different from the others which we have
heretofore had occasion to decide, in that herein it is sought to
operate midget taxicabs whose tariff rates are much lower. We do hot
agree, however, as to the merits of the case. From the voluminous
evidence, which we have had the opportunity to review, there can be no
other inference than that the residents of the City of Manila and
adjacent provinces would be materially benefited by the new service
inaugurated and actually operated by the herein applicant-appellee. The
service thus established has filled a need long felt, particularly by
the masses who cannot afford to pay the rates charged by the larger
motor vehicles engaged in the same service. We do not agree with the
theory advanced, that it is necessary to adopt the new service in order
to eliminate horse-drawn vehicles; nevertheless, if this be the result,
it should be accepted as a tribute to progress and to the inevitable
modernization of transportation systems.

It is but natural
that these midget taxicabs should charge lower rates than the larger
taxicabs, which is only logical inasmuch as the former afford the
passengers less comfort and are relatively cheaper than the latter.
But, at any rate, such reduction in rates should not be viewed as an
element engendering ruinous competition inasmuch as the public is
intelligent and may use its own discretion in the selection of the
quality and cost of the transportation it cares to use.

There is no basis of comparison between the service rendered by midget
cars and that rendered by the taxicabs of greater capacity and, for
this reason, the operators of the latter kind of cars have no right to
demand that they be given an opportunity to increase their equipment
for the purpose of warding off an alleged ruinous competition which
4oes not actually exist.

The foregoing considerations, in our opinion, refute the arguments set forth in support of the first assignment of error.

As we have already stated in the case of Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Aero Taxicab Co. vs. Barredo, G. R. No. 38286,^[1]
Judge Vicente de Vera’s participation in the case before us can in
nowise be construed as illegal or intended for illicit purposes. It is
presumed that he has conscientiously examined all the evidence adduced
herein before preparing the decision which he signed, and under such
circumstances, we do not see anything anomalous in his action.

The decision being in accordance with law, and reasonably supported by
the evidence, the commission acted correctly in denying the motion for
reconsideration and new trial filed by the appellant.

The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with the costs against the oppositor-appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Hull, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] See next case.