MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., VS. FRANCISCA VILUAN, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition filed by the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. for
the review of a decision of the Public Service Commission in Case No.
117725 rendered on October 14, 1959, granting Francisca Viluan a
certificate of public convenience to operate five automobiles for
taxicab service within San Fernando, La Union, and therefrom to any
point in the island of Luzon accessible by motor vehicle, and vice
versa.

On May 18, 1957 petitioner applied for a certificate of public
convenience with the Public Service Commission to operate thirty
automobiles for taxicab service within San Fernando, La Union, and from
said place to any point in Luzon. The application was approved but only
for ten units. In August 1957 petitioner commenced operations.

On September 19, 1957, petitioner applied for twenty additional
units, alleging that its units at the time were insufficient to meet
the demands of the riding public in said municipality. Pending said
application, respondent Francisca Viluan filed her own application for
a certificate of public convenience to operate ten automobiles for
taxicab service within petitioner’s territory. The latter opposed the
application claiming (1) that the ten units operated by it, together
with the proposed increase of twenty units, were more than sufficient
to meet the needs of the riding public in the subject territory; (2)
that the approval of respondent’s application would create ruinous
cut-throat competition between them; and (3) that petitioner’s
application for an increase of units should be given preference, it
being an old operator.

On the date set for the hearing of respondent’s application,
petitioner moved for the postponement thereof pending final
determination by the Commission of its application for an increase of
units. The Commission denied the motion and proceeded with the
reception of respondent’s evidence.

Meanwhile, on October 28, 1958, petitioner’s application for
increase was granted but only for fifteen units instead of the twenty
applied for. In view thereof, petitioner moved for the dismissal of
respondent’s application alleging that the grant of an increase of only
fifteen units was a conclusive finding of fact that there was only a
need of an increase of 15 units in San Fernando, La Union. The
Commission denied the motion as was petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration.

On October 14, 1959, after hearing respondent’s application, the Commission rendered the decision under review.

The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Public Service
Commission, committed a reversible error in granting respondent a
certificate of public convenience to operate five automobiles for
taxicab service, as stated heretofore, after granting: petitioner’s
application for increase but only for fifteen units instead of the
twenty additional units applied for.

Upon the evidences before us, we are of the opinion and so hold that the order appealed from must be affirmed.

In the first place, the real question involved is one of fact,
namely, whether or not the circumstances prevailing in the area covered
by the application filed by respondent sufficiently justify the
granting of her application. In this connection we have heretofore held
that the law has invested the Public Service Commission, in the
exercise of its power of supervision and control over public
transportation, with broad discretion, and we are not supposed to
interfere with that discretion and to substitute our opinion for that
of the commission, except in a case of clear abuse thereof – which has
not been shown in the case at bar. (Estate of Buan etc., vs. Pampanga
Bus Company, 53 O.G. 8553; Raymundo Transportation Co. vs. Cerda, 53
O.G. 3580, May 18, 1956)

In the second place, it is to be noted that petitioner’s application
for increase was granted on October 28, 1958, while respondent’s
application was granted on October 14, 1959. During the intervening one
year period, it is entirely possible—as the Commission must have found—
that the pertinent conditions and circumstances in the area had
sufficiently changed to justify the granting” of respondent’s
application.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes J. B. L., Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., reserves his vote.
Regala, J., took no part.