A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., BICOL TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND CONSOLIDATED AUTO LINES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. EMILIANO DEL ROSARIO, RESPONDENT.

Ammen Transportation versus Del Rosario

The Case

This is a petition brought by three Bicol transport operators — Ammen Transportation, Bicol Transportation, and Consolidated Auto Lines — against Emiliano del Rosario, a private applicant for a certificate of public convenience. The petitioners challenge the decision of the Public Service Commission granting Del Rosario authority to operate passenger truck lines in the Bicol region, on the ground that he lacks the financial capacity to establish, maintain, and operate the service. The case matters because it fixes the standard a Bar candidate must know: financial capacity is not a matter of the Commission's unfettered say-so, and the Supreme Court will reverse a finding of financial ability that the evidence cannot support.

Procedural History

Del Rosario applied to the Public Service Commission for authority to operate passenger trucks. On December 22, 1960, the Commission rendered a decision approving the application, finding that the applicant is financially capable of maintaining and operating the service applied for. The petitioners, existing transport operators in the region, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, Del Rosario filed a motion asking the Court to admit evidence that he had already acquired and registered all five authorized units with the Motor Vehicles Office, but he submitted no supporting evidence of that acquisition or registration.

Facts

Emiliano del Rosario sought authority from the Public Service Commission to operate four passenger trucks from Tiwi to Naga City and one passenger truck from Tiwi to Legaspi City. To prove his financial capacity, he relied entirely on his own testimony. He claimed commercial property of four hectares valued at 14,000 pesos in the commercial districts of Pasig, Rizal; a residential house and lot in Makati, Rizal, with a lot area of 600 square meters, valued at 20,000 pesos and rented at 100 pesos monthly; and work as a driver for Encinas Transit earning approximately five or six pesos a day, a position he had held for seven months.

The petitioners countered that these holdings could not possibly fund the purchase of five trucks at current high prices, much less the construction of their bodies and the operating expenses. They examined the tax rolls and found that no real estate in Pasig appeared declared in Del Rosario's name. They also found that his Makati house and lot carried a total assessment of only 1,780 pesos, with a lot area of 279 square meters, not the 600 square meters he claimed. Their annexes showed that he did not appear in the Pasig tax rolls, that his Makati property was assessed at 700 pesos for the lot and 1,800 pesos for the house, that as of January 30, 1962 he had registered only one Chevrolet truck, and that since 1961 he had registered no new trucks.

Del Rosario answered that no law or jurisprudence requires the financial standing of an applicant to be measured with exactitude in money and property, and that the Commission is best placed to determine sufficiency of capacity. He later moved to admit evidence of the alleged acquisition and registration of all five units, but offered no proof.

Issues

• Whether or not the Public Service Commission erred in finding that respondent Del Rosario possesses the financial capacity to establish, maintain, and operate the passenger truck lines authorized.
• Whether or not the respondent's alleged subsequent acquisition and registration of the five authorized trucks, unsupported by evidence, can cure the want of financial capacity.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it construes the requirement of financial capacity under the public service law as applied by the Public Service Commission. The governing principle appears in the Court's own statement of the law:

It is true that the law does not fix the amount necessary for the establishment of the business and that this matter is left to the discretion of the Public Service Commission.

This bears on the case because it explains why the Commission's finding is generally respected, yet also why that discretion must rest on evidence that reasonably supports it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court reversed the Commission. It took judicial notice that trucks are very expensive and costly, and that providing them with bodies and tires demands considerable capital. To establish a reasonably satisfactory service and insure the safety of passengers, the operator must not only have equipment in reasonably good condition but sufficient capital on hand to begin operations and pay drivers, mechanics, and other employees. The Court acknowledged that the law leaves the amount to the Commission's discretion, but held that the evidence reasonably satisfied it that the respondent's financial condition rendered it impossible for him to run the service and maintain it efficiently and successfully.

On the second issue, the Court held that the alleged subsequent registration of trucks could not change its finding. No certificates of registration were presented, no evidence of the condition of the trucks, and no proof that the trucks did not belong to another individual — for if they did, the respondent would only be a dummy of that individual.

Doctrine

Financial capacity is an essential requirement for a certificate of public convenience, and while the law does not fix the amount necessary and leaves that matter to the discretion of the Public Service Commission, the Commission's finding must be supported by evidence. The Court will reverse a finding of financial ability where the applicant's proven resources plainly cannot fund the acquisition of equipment and the operating capital needed for a safe and efficient service. Bare testimony of assets, contradicted by tax records and unsupported by documentation, is insufficient. Equally, a claim of subsequent acquisition and registration of authorized units, unaccompanied by certificates of registration or proof of ownership and condition, cannot cure the defect.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission and denied the application of respondent Del Rosario, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the law does not fix the amount, but the Commission's discretion must rest on evidence, and the Court will reverse a finding of financial capacity that the applicant's proven resources cannot support. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a certificate of public convenience — particularly financial capacity — and the limits of the Commission's discretion.