FORTUNATO F. HALILI, PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO HERAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petitioner is the owner and operator of the Halili Transit which is
engaged in the transportation of passengers and freight within the City
of Manila and suburbs. On January 9, 1957, he was granted authority by
the Public Service Commission to register and operate 65 buses 40 of
which on the line Project 3, Quirino District, via Highway 54 and South
Avenue, and 26 buses on the same line via Kamuning-Sampaloc Avenue and
Roces Avenue, Quezon City, and via Kamuning-Sampaloc Avenue and Timog
Avenue, also in Quezon City, with the condition that he should register
the authorized units within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the
decision, and that failure on his part to do so will be sufficient
cause for the Commission to withdraw the authority granted. Up to
October 25, 1957, petitioner registered only a total of 30 autotrucks,
and since then he has not registered any additional trucks under the
authority granted.

Sometime in July, 1960, respondents,
together with other operators, filed several petitions with the Public
Service Commission praying for the cancellation of the 35 units which
petitioner had failed to register, as well as for authority to register
and operate said units themselves. To the petitions, petitioner filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground (1) that since the certificate of
public convenience sought to be appropriated is still valid and
subsisting, it cannot be appropriated and, hence, the petitions are
premature; and (2) that the charge, that petitioner violated the terms
of his certificate of public convenience is a prejudicial question
which the Commission should first hear and determine before it could
proceed to consider the petitions for appropriation.

On September 20, 1960, the Commission denied the motion to dismiss on
the ground that the petitions actually are in the nature of a complaint
for cancellation of the certificate of public convenience due to
abandonment of, service and, to avoid duplicity of action, the
petitions for cancellation and appropriation were consolidated into one
single proceeding. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for
extension of time to register the 35 buses he failed to register under
the certificate in question. By agreement of the parties, all the
petitions for cancellation and appropriation, as well as the petition
for extension of time to register the 35 buses as aforesaid, were heard
jointly.

On August 8, 1961, after due trial, the Commission rendered decision
cancelling the authority given to petitioner to operate the 35 buses in
question and, in his place, it authorized Antonio Heras and De Dios
Transportation Co. to proportionately register and operate the same
considering that they were not only established operators in Project 3,
Quirino District, but had filed their applications ahead of the other
operators. Petitioner interposed the present petition for review.

The first question raised by petitioner refers to the simultaneous
hearing held by the Commission relative to the petitions for
cancellation and appropriation of the 35 buses in dispute. He contends
that if a complaint for cancellation is tried separately the issue
would only narrow down to whether there is abandonment of the service
in which case the most that could be imposed would be the payment of a
penalty in the form of fine or suspension of the service, whereas if
the complaint is heard jointly with the petition for appropriation and
the charge is proven, the result would be not only the imposition of
that penalty but the cancellation of the corresponding certificate of
convenience, all of “which would work to the great disadvantage of
petitioner.

There is no merit in this contention for it is well-known that the
Public Service Commission is given by law ample power and discretion to
consider petitions of this nature either singly or jointly depending
upon the convenience of the Commission or of the parties concerned, and
if a joint trial is held the Commission may not only impose the penalty
that the evidence may justify but take whatever other appropriate
action may be warranted by the circumstances. The Commission,
therefore, did not commit any error in conducting a joint hearing of
the petitions, but should rather be commended because its effect is
less circuitous and avoids duplicity of action.

With regard to petitioner’s claim that the Commission did not give him
the preference to register the 35 units for which he asked that he be
given a reasonable time, we likewise find that the same has no merit
for it appears from the record that from the time he received copy of
the decision in the original case wherein he was allowed to register
and operate 65 units along the same line he was only able to register
and operate about 80 autotrucks, having failed to comply with the
requirement up to the date when the petitions for cancellation were
filed by respondents, which cannot but give the impression that
petitioner has totally abandoned the privilege given him by the
Commission. His claim now that he was not given the same privilege
comes too late, more so when it is considered that of the more than 400
buses he was authorized to operate under his other certificates of
public convenience he was only able to register 317, without including
the 35 units he failed to register under the instant certificate of
public convenience.

Neither can we give credit or value to petitioner’s claim that his
failure to register the units in question is. due to shortage of trucks
in the local market, difficulty in securing foreign exchange, or his
physical inability due to his protacted present illness, for the
Commission found enough evidence eloquently showing that other
operators 14 who were simultaneously granted similar certificates of 11
public convenience were able to purchase and secure trucks from several
dealers in the local market during the same period. The illness of
petitioner certainly is no argument against his compliance with the
requirement of the Commission for it can be undertaken if not by his
children or by other authorized representatives.

While as a rule, a pioneer-operator should be given the preference to
cover the required units when expansion is needed, such cannot favor
petitioner for he has completely failed to comply with the requirement
for more than 3 years thus giving the impression that he has completely
abandoned the service insofar as the units its question are concerned.

WHEREFORE, we hereby affirm the decision of respondent Commission, with costs against petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.