CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

Central Taxicab Corporation filed the present petition to review
the decision of the Public Service Commission in Cases Nos. 62-6717 etc.,
entitled Macario A. Abad,
Jr. and Ninety-Eight (98) Others, dated September 7, 1964, which decision,
insofar as pertinent to this case, reads:

“After a thorough study of the evidence submitted with respect
to citizenship and financial capacity of each and every applicant, it was found
that not all applications could be given favorable consideration.  The undersigned took into account the number
of units applied for in relation to the evidence of financial capacity
submitted by the individual applicant; the ability to personally handle and
manage efficiently the business based on experience, and his observations of
the demeanor of the applicant on the witness stand; the availability of space
for garage and other particulars deemed important so as to give the public good
and efficient taxicab service.

“As regards old and existing operators who filed either
applications for increase of equipment or counter-applica­tions, it was
discovered that most, if not all, of them, sold part of their units to
others.  Under this condition, and unless
otherwise compelled by exceptional circumstances, the Commission is of the
considered opinion that it would be inconsistent and running counter to the
natural course of things to grant their applications for increase of units
after selling to others the whole or part of what they already have.

“The claim of the old operators for preference in case of
grant under the ‘old operators rule’ cannot be sustained and looked upon with
favor.  In the first place, the rule is
not absolute – several conditions must first be met and satisfied before a
claim for priority could be favorably, entertained.  Under the instant cases, it was the new
applicants who first filed their applications, with the old operators claiming that there is no public necessity
for the operation of additional units. 
It was only after sometime when they became convinced that such public
need really exist that the old operators filed their own counter applications
claiming priority under the said rule.

“With the foregoing criterion as a basis, the applica­tions
not included in the list of those granted are either DISMISSED for lack of
interest or failure to prosecute or DENIED for failure to qualify.”

Petitioner, existing operator of 88 units
of taxicab and applying for additional 200 units (Case No. 62-6225) does not
appear in the list of those whose applications were granted.

Contending that the denial of its application for increase of
units is arbitrary, discriminatory and without legal basis, petitioner alleges, among other things that it is a
taxicab operator since 1949: that its petition for increase of units, filed on
October 10, 1962, was not a “counter-application”, petitioner being one of
the earliest applicants; that the application was pursued with zeal and
interest, petitioner appearing at the hearing and adducing evidence therein;
that it was able to present sufficient evidence
of its financial capacity, efficiency,
experience and preparedness;^[1]
that although it had sold five taxicab units to one Pedro Reyes, said units
were not part of its original fleet of taxicabs — they were only acquired from
another taxicab operator, the
Del Monte Transportation, on August 28, 1950 for P2,000.00, and were resold to said Pedro Reyes on October 24,
1950 for the same amount of P2,000.00; that thereafter, it was able to acquire
a total of 45 units from various operators, which acquisitions were all duly
approved by the Public Service Commission.^[2]
Petitioner further assailed the legality of the decision, pointing out that it
contains no specific findings of fact upon which the ruling was based.  This case was submitted for decision without appellees‘ brief, the Public Service Commission and Chamber
of Taxicab Services, Inc. having failed to file theirs, notwithstanding due
requirement of this Court.

In contesting the correctness of the decision of the Public
Service Commission, petitioner is actually asking this Court to review the
conclusion reached by said body as to petitioner’s quali­fication to operate
additional units of taxicab.  As a
general rule, this cannot be done, for the qualification or disqualification of
an applicant is determined by the evidence submitted to the Commission, and the
latter’s findings on this matter should deserve the respect of the appellate
court.  However, it is also true that the
rule on the finality of factual findings of the Public Service Commission is
not without exception.  Thus, where it
clearly appears that the factual findings of that body are not supported by
substantial evidence, or that in reaching a certain conclusion the Commission
committed grave abuse of discretion, such findings of fact may be modified or ignored.^[3]

The decision now under consideration is supposed to rule on
ninety-nine (99) separate applications for certificates of public service, and
we find that the only portion thereof tending to provide basis for the actions
taken thereon was that quoted at the beginning of this opinion.  And from there, it may be gathered that in
the consideration of those applications, the Commission had adopted the
following guideposts or criteria:   as
regard new applications, it took into account the applicant’s citizenship,
financial capacity, ability to personally manage the business, with emphasis on
experience; the demeanor of the witness on the stand, and availability of
garage.  With respect to old or existing
operators who are applying for increase of their units, in addition to the
abovementioned factors, the Commis­sion
considered whether the applicant had sold part of their units to others, and whether the petition is a
“counter-application” or filed only after the new applicants had
shown the existence of public need for expansion of the taxicab service.

In this connection, notice should be taken of the fact that in
the decisions penned by some members of the Commission during the same period,
and involving similar applications as the one at bar,^[4]
concurred in and signed by the Commissioner who wrote the decision now under review, it appears that it
was indeed agreed among them as a
matter of policy to deny the applications for increase of units of operators
who have speculated and sold any number of units operated by them, or of those
who have been found guilty of tampering taxi­meters or similar violations.  However, in the implementation of this
policy, exception was made in the case of operators who, after parting with
some units, were able to acquire more (units) than those sold.  They
were not considered engaged in the trafficking of certificates and declared not
disqualified for award of additional units.^[5]

In view of the foregoing, we find petitioner’s appeal to be
meritorious; the denial of its application for additional units is evidently
not supported by, if not contrary to, the evidence on record.  The decision in dispute failed to specify for whit reason or reasons the
herein application was denied, It can only be conjectured, there­fore, that it
was so because petitioner is either not qualified or its application was not
timely.  But petitioner’s allegations
that its application was one of the earliest on file, and that it is
financially capable, experienced and prepared to operate additional units, supported
by evidence presented before the Commission, remain unrefuted.  The explanation on the sale of the five taxicab units in 1950 and the sub­sequent
acquisition of 45 other units by herein petitioner would also negative any
charge of speculation in public service certificates, in accordance with the
Commission’s own standards. 
Consequently, there, is justification for the conclusion that the denial
of the application in this case is without legal basis and contrary to the
evidence.  Considering that the decision
involves ninety-nine different applications it should have been desirable that the ground, no matter
how brief, for the actions taken on them were given.  That would have precluded any finding or even
suspicion of arbitrariness or discrimination in the Commission’s ruling.

Since under similar circumstances the Commission granted the P.
& B. Taxicab Co. (Case No. 63-5998) ten (10) additional units, despite the
fact that it had, like petitioner, disposed
of some units of its own but purchased other units, we see no reason why
the petitions Central Taxicab Corporation should not be allocated a number of
addi­tional units proportionate to its present operating taxicabs.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, in so far as it
concerns  Case No. 62-6225, Central
Taxicab Corporation, applicant, is reversed and the respondent Public Service
Commission is directed to authorize said applicant to operate fifteen (15)
additional units under the terms and conditions set forth in the decision of
September 4, 1964.  No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Exhs. F,
G, G-1, H, H-1 to H-3, I, I-1 to 1-15, J, J-1 to J-24, K, K-1, K-2, L, L-1 to
L-12, M, N, N-1 to N-3 (pp. 48-128, PSC record).

^[2]
12 units from Jose del Rosario, Jr., approved by the Commission on May 16, 1951; 5 units from Sofia V.
de Paragas, approved on November 17, 1951; 5 units
from Veterans Express Co.. Inc., approved on November 3, 1953; 9 units from
Francisco Lizaso, approved on June 8, 1953; 10 units
from Cirilo Custodio,
approved June 28, 1954; 4 units dropped out by Jose del Rosario, Jr. and
Francisco Lizaso from their original applications
were awarded to appellant by order of the Commission of February 10, 1956.

^[3] Del Pilar Transit, Inc. vs. Silva, G. R.
No. L-21547, July 15, 1966; Halili vs. Daplas, G. R.
No. L-20282, May 19, 1965.

^[4]
Decisions penned by Commissioner Medina in Cases 62­-4385 and 153 others, dated
September 4, 1964 (Petition, Annex L); by Commissioner De Guzman in Cases
62-5220 and 39 others, dated September 7, 1964 (Annex L-1); and by Commissioner
Fornier in Cases 62-4375 and 24 others, dated
September 7, 1964 (Annex L-2, Petition).

^[5]
See Decision in Cases Nos. 62-4220, etc., dated September 1964, signed by
Commissioner Medina and Associate Commissioners De Guzman, Guinto,
Panganiban and Fornier
(Annex L-1); and in Case 63-5998,
P. & B. Taxicab Co., applicant (Annex L, page 9).