FORTUNATO F. HALILI, PETITIONER, VS. JORGE R. FLORO, RESPONDENT.

Rotonda (Rizal City) Plaza Goiti

Plaza Goiti – Baclaran via Taft Avenue

Plaza Goiti – Baclaran via F.B. Harrison, and

Plaza Goiti – Libertad via F.B. Harrison.

The petitioner Fortunato F. Halili, a pre-war TPU operator, filed
opposition to the application on the grounds that prior to the war he
had already been rendering transportation service along the said route;
that the service at present is sufficient and adequate; that he has
preference over the applicant to cover said lines; that if there is any
deficiency he is ready and willing at any time to supply same; that the
granting of the application would give rise to ruinous and unfair
competition; that applicant is not financially capable of operating and
maintaining the service applied for; and that the emergency
certificates issued by the Public Service Commission have not yet
expired as the emergency still exists.

The Public Service Commission granted the application and the
petitioner comes to this Court with the petition for review of the
decision of the Commission, praying that it be reversed.

In this Court, the petitioner makes the following assignment of errors:

“I

“The Public Service
Commission erred in not holding that the service rendered by the buses
of the petitioner together with those of other operators on the lines
in question is sufficient and adequate.

“II

“The Public Service Commission erred in holding that public necessity
and convenience warrant the grant to the respondent of a certificate of
public convenience in said lines and in authorizing the respondent to
increase his equipment.

“III

“The
Public Service Commission erred in not declaring that the service
proposed by the respondent would merely constitute a ruinous and unfair
competition with the established service of the petitioner.

“IV

“The Public Service Commission erred in not holding that the
petitioner, being the old and established operator on the said lines,
has the preference to put up such additional service as the Commission
may deem necessary on the said lines.

“V

“The Public Service Commission erred in not holding that the respondent
is financially capable of operating the service proposed by him.

“VI

“The Public Service Commission erred in granting the respondent a certificate of public convenience.”

The trial was held before Attorney Generoso Almario of the Public
Service Commission who had been commissioned to take the testimony of
the witnesses in this case, without any objection from any of the
parties.

The parties, in their briefs, discuss the increase of the
population of the City of Manila and neighboring cities and
municipalities, including the City of Pasay, although no specific
evidence on the point was presented at the trial. It is a fact of
general knowledge that the population has increased by more than fifty
percent (Special Bulletin No. 1 and Supplement thereto, issued by the
Bureau of Census and Statistics, cited by the petitioner), while the
number of public service buses and the passenger and freight capacity
of each are about equal to the total carrying capacity of the buses
rendering service before the war.

Testimonial evidence was presented before the Commission which
tended to prove that the passenger buses were overcrowded and
overflowing and not sufficient in number, to the great danger and
discomfort of the passengers.

The allegation of the oppositor that he can fill up the deficiency
at any time is not worthy of consideration, because he should have
applied to the Commission for that purpose before the respondent had
presented his application and made the requisite preparations for
increasing his carrying capacity.

The oppositor has waived his preference, if he had any, in supplying the deficiency.

The oppositor contends that the respondent is not financially able
to render the additional service applied for. The Commission found
otherwise from the evidence submitted, stating that by virtue of an
emergency certificate the respondent had been serving along the line
above mentioned with an equipment of twelve (12) units. The total
assets in his transportation business amounted to P109,382.94. He had a
deposit of P5,000.00 in a bank and a credit line of P35,000 in the
Philippine Trust Company. In the year 19W he had a gross income of
P352,141.17 from passenger fares and operating expenses of P344,307.96,
or a net profit of P7,793.21. Together with his brothers and sisters he
owns real estate valued at approximately one half million pesos. He has
already made reservations with the Liddell Motors Inc. for twenty-three
new trucks.

Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, known as the Public Service
Act provides, among other things, that the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to modify or set aside an order, ruling, or decision of
the Public Service Commission “when it clearly appears that there was
no evidence before the Commission to support reasonably such order,
ruling, or decision, or that the same is contrary to law, or that it
was without the jurisdiction of the Commission.

It is not pretended that the decision under review is contrary to law or that it was without jurisdiction of the Commission.

After a review of the evidence presented in connection with the
arguments of the parties regarding the conclusions of fact reached by
the Commission, we find that there is ample evidence to support the
decision in question with very cogent reasons; we are not at liberty to
substitute our own findings of fact for those of the Commission
reasonably supported by the evidence even if we had some plausible
ground to make the modification, which in the present case we do not
have.

In view of the foregoing, the decision under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Paras, C. J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.