G.R. No. L-21061. June 27, 1968
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, PETITIONER, VS. RUPERTO CRUZ, RESPONDENT.
ZALDIVAR, J.:
This is a petition for review of the decision of the Public
Service Commission, in its Case No.
61-6113, granting to respondent-appellee Ruperto Cruz a certificate of public convenience to
operate a transportation service for
passengers and freight, with authority to operate ten units on the line
he applied for.
Herein respondent filed, on September 19, 1961, with the Public
Service Commission an application, praying for the grant of a certificate of
public convenience to operate, under PUB denomination, ten buses between Norzagaray (Bulacan) and Piers
(Manila), via Novaliches Road, A. Bonifacio
Road, Blumentritt Street, Rizal
Avenue, MacArthur Bridge, Aduana
and 13th Streets; and on the return trip, via Boston Street, MacArthur Bridge, Rizal Avenue, Blumentritt Street, A. Bonifacio
Road, and Novaliches Road. The application was opposed by De Dios Transportation Co. Inc., Raymundo
Transportation Co. Inc., PDP Transit Inc., Villa Rey
Transit, Inc., and by herein petitioner-appellant Fortunato
F. Halili who was the operator of the transportation
service known as “Halili Transit.”
Petitioner, in his opposition alleged, substantially, that he was an operator
of a bus service on the line applied for, enumerating at the same time the
other lines he operated which were traversed by the route mentioned in
respondent’s application; that his service, as well as that of other bus
operators on the route, was more than adequate to meet the demands of the
traveling public; that the grant of the application would merely result in
wasteful and ruinous competition, and that the respondent was not financially
capable of operating and maintaining the service proposed by him.
After several hearings in
which the parties presented their evidence, oral and documentary, the Public
Service Commission rendered a decision, on February 13, 1963, granting a
certificate of public convenience to respondent Ruperto
Cruz to operate ten buses under PUB denomination on the line Norzagaray (Bulacan)–Piers
(Manila) passing through the routes applied for. The decision states, among others, as
follows:
“After a careful
study of the evidence presented by the contesting parties, we find the
following facts established; that applicant is applying for a service from Norzagaray to Piers and vice-versa; that not one of the oppositors herein operate a service up to Piers–most of
them go up to Divisoria and the rest up to Folgueras; that there are commuters starting from Norzagaray up to Piers; that applicant has the experience
in the operation of a PUB service and that applicant has the means with which
to operate and maintain the service herein applied for.
“From the facts in evidence, this Commission is of the belief
that the weight of evidence tips in favor of the applicant.
“It appearing, therefore, that applicant is a Filipino
citizen, that he is financially capable to operate and maintain the service
herein applied for, and that public convenience and necessity will be promoted
by the approval of this application, and furthermore, that the oppositions of
the oppositors herein are without merit, the same are
overruled and the instant application APPROVED.”
It is the above-mentioned decision of the Public Service
Commission that is now sought to be reviewed by this Court.
Petitioner contends that:
1.
“The finding of the Public
Service Commission that there was a public need for the operation by respondent
of ten buses on the line Norzagaray (Bulacan) — Piers (Manila)
is not supported by the evidence;
2.
“The Public Service
Commission erred when it did not recognize the fact that petitioner-appellant
was rendering sufficient and adequate service on the line in question; and
3.
“The Public Service
Commission erred in failing to
give petitioner-appellant the right of protection to investment to which
petitioner-appellant is entitled.”
In support of his first two contentions petitioner argues that
the 500 passengers found by the Commission as commuting daily from Norzagaray to Manila could easily be accommodated in the
buses of existing operators; that the existing operators were authorized to
operate 31 buses which made around 100 round trips a day; that since a bus
could accommodate about 50 passengers, the existing authorized services could
easily accommodate not only the 500 but even 5000 passengers a day. Petitioner also asserted that the Commission
failed to consider that 200 of the 500 commuters worked in the Republic Cement
Factory located at Norzagaray and so there were
really only 300 commuters daily traveling on the Norzagaray–Manila
line. Petitioner further claimed that
the new terminal proposed in the application was not based on actual need,
because there were no importing firms, or business establishments, or
manufacturing concerns, in Norzagaray, whose
employees had to make trips to the piers at the south harbor in Manila. On the question of public necessity,
petitioner pointed out that the evidence presented by the respondent consisted
only of the testimony of two witnesses who did not make any formal or
systematic study of the movement and frequency of public utility buses, so that
their testimonies were based only on casual observations. On the other hand, as petitioner pointed out,
the oppositors presented five witnesses, two of whom
made meticulous, systematic and daily observations on the line applied
for. Petitioner urged that according to
Exhibits “1”, “1-A” to “1-R”, consisting of
different pages of entries in a checkbook et the various PSC checkpoints in the
proposed line, buses passing the checkpoints were carrying only from 1 to 5
passengers — which fact proved that the existing operators more than
adequately served the needs of the public.
Petitioner likewise asserted that public necessity did not
require the operation of the ten buses applied for by the respondent because of
the fact that on December 20, 1961, the Public Service Commission granted to
herein petitioner, in Case No. 61-5807, authority to operate only 10 buses on
the line Norzagaray–Manila, even if he had applied
for 20 buses; and that out of the many applications to operate buses from
Paradise Farms (Bulacan) to Manila, only 10 buses
were authorized.
The first two contentions of petitioner raise questions of
fact. This Court has repeatedly held
that where the Public Service Commission has reached a finding, after weighing
the conflicting evidence, that public necessity and convenience warrant the
operation of additional public utility service, the finding must not be disturbed as long as there is
evidence reasonably supporting such finding.[1] In reviewing the decision of the Commission, this Court is not even
required to examine the proof de novo and determine for itself
whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies the
decision. The only function of this
Court is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission
upon which its decision might reasonably be based.[2]
The Commission stated in its decision that “after a careful study of the evidence
presented by the contesting parties x x x the Commission is of the belief that the weight of
evidence tips in favor of the application.” There is evidence on record that there are
numerous students, professionals, merchants, and employees in both government
and private concerns, that commute daily between Norzagaray
and Manila and the intermediate points along the line;[3]
that along the same line have emerged numerous centers of population,
residential subdivisions and housing projects, industrial projects like the
Republic Cement Factory, Angat River Dam and Hydroelectric
Power Project, and hollow blocks manufacturing establishments;[4]
that commuters experienced difficulties in getting accommodated on buses
traveling between Norzagaray and Manila; that the
Villa Rey Transit used to make two trips from Angat to Manila via Norzagaray,
the La Mallorca Pambusco
also two trips from Norzagaray to Manila via Sta.
Maria, and the Halili Transit likewise two trips from
Norzagaray to Manila via the Novaliches
Road; that said trips were fully loaded at Norzagaray
such that many commuters from Norzagaray had to take
jeeps which brought them only up to Sta. Maria and Bocaue
and there waited for other means of transportation to bring them to Manila;[5]
and that commuters from Manila to Norzagaray also had
to resort to broken trips for lack of direct trips.[6] We are persuaded that the evidence in the
record support the decision appealed from.
Petitioner claims that the Public Service Commission did not
consider the checker’s reports (Exhs. 1, 1-A, to
1-R), on the face of which it appears that there was no overcrowding in the
buses checked at the various checkpoints.
The Commission, however, states in its decision that it had arrived at
its finding “after a careful study of the evidence presented by the
contesting parties,” — and necessarily the evidence thus studied included
the checker’s reports. But assuming, gratia argumenti, that said reports were not considered the failure of the
Commission to consider the reports would not constitute a reversible error,
because we find that the reports refer to trips of buses from Manila to Ipo, Sapang Palay,
San Jose and back, and from upland to lowland and back, and none of the buses
checked had trips along Norzagaray-Manila or Manila-Norzagaray
line. The relative weight of
these checker’s reports as evidence must have been considered by the Commission
before making its decision. As we have
stated, the finding of fact of the Public Service Commission is conclusive on
this Court. Thus, in a case, this Court
said:
“It appearing that the main issues raised by petitioner merely
affect questions of fact which by their very nature involve an evaluation of
the relative weight of the evidence of both parties, or the credibility of
witnesses who testified before the Commission,
following the law and jurisprudence applicable to the matter in this
jurisdiction, said questions are now conclusive upon this Court, and cannot be
looked into, it appearing that there is
sufficient evidence to support
its findings.”[7]
The claim of petitioner,
that he was rendering adequate service on the line in question as would preclude the necessity of another
operator, is untenable. In the first
place, as shown in the record, petitioner does not have a direct line from Norzagaray to the Piers – the line that is applied for by
respondent. In the second place, there
is evidence to the effect that oppositor Halili was authorized 48 trips between Norzagaray
and Folgueras,[8] but it was making two trips only.[9] This circumstance indicated that there was
shortage of transportation units or
facilities, and that the line was not adequately serviced by the petitioner. Thus, in a case
concerning the non-operation of authorized units, this Court said:
“Apart from the existence of competent evidence in support of
these findings, certain undisputed facts therein contained reveal that the
assignment of error under consideration is manifestly untenable. We refer to the circumstance that, of the 75 buses that the Raytranco
is authorized to operate in all its lines, its right with respect to 30 has
been leased, 14 to Rizman and 16 to Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company.
Again, though still entitled to operate 45 units in its remaining
lines, the Raytranco has registered only 17 buses,
aside from the circumstance that such buses are not in continuous operation. These facts lead to the conclusion that there
must be a shortage of transportation facilities in the lines aforementioned
and that the Raytranco is unable to meet fully the
demands of public convenience therein.”[10]
Petitioner claims, in his
third contention, that the Public Service Commission failed to give him the
protection that he is entitled to, being an old and established public service
operator. As a general principle public
utility operators must be protected from ruinous competition, such that before
permitting a new operator to serve in a territory already served by another
operator, the latter should first be given opportunity to improve his equipment and service. This principle, however, is subject to
justifiable exceptions. The primary
consideration in the grant of a certificate of public convenience must always
be public convenience. Thus, this Court
said:
“While it is the duty of the government as far as possible to
protect public utility operators against unfair and unjustified competition,
it is nevertheless obvious that public convenience must have the first
consideration.…”[11]
The public convenience is
properly served if passengers
who take buses at points in one part of a line are able to proceed beyond those
points without having to change buses.
On this point this Court said:
“It is the convenience of the public that must be taken into
account, other things being equal, and that convenience would be effectuated by
passengers who take buses at points in one part of a line being able to proceed beyond those points without having to
change buses and to wait the arrival of buses of a competitive operator. We can perceive how under such conditions one
public utility could gain business at the expense of a rival.”[12]
In the instant case, public convenience would be properly served
if commuters from Norzagaray going to Piers in Manila
could go to their destination without the need of changing buses. Certainly the Public Service Commission has
power to grant a certificate of public convenience to a new operator, and the
old operator cannot with reason complain that it had not been given opportunity to improve its
equipment and service, if it is shown that the old operator has not placed in
the service all the units of equipment that it had been authorized to operate,
and also when the old operator has violated, or has not complied with,
important conditions in its certificate.[13] In the instant case, it has been shown that
petitioner had not operated all the units that it was authorized to operate.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision of the Public
Service Commission, sought to be reviewed, is affirmed; with costs against
petitioner-appellant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez,
Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1]
Red Line Transportation Co. Inc., vs. Matias Santo
Tomas, G.R. No. L-18472, January 30,
1967; La Mallorca
and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc., vs. Mercado, G.R.
No. L-19120, November 29, 1965;
Halili vs. Dallas, G. R. No. L-20282, May 19, 1965; La Mallorca and Pampanga
Bus Co., Inc., vs. Mendiola,
G. R. No. L-19558, November 28, 1963;
MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc., vs. Pepito,
G. R. No. L-16481, September 29, 1962;
Pineda vs. Carandang, G. R. No. L-13270-71, March 24, 1960.
[2]
Pineda vs. Carandang, Nos. L-13270-71, March
24, 1960; La Mallorca and Pampanga
Bus Co., Inc. vs. Mendiola, L-19558, November
29, 1963; Del Pilar Transit, Inc., vs. Silva,
et al., L-21547, July 15, 1966.
[3]
T.S.N., April 18, 1962, pp.
25-31; July 25, 1962, pp.
45-51; July 31, 1962; pp.
63-66, 73-76; August 17, 1962,
p. 219.
[4]
T.S.N., April 18, 1962, pp.
27-28, 30-31; October 2, 1962;
pp. 171-172.
[5]
T.S.N., April 18, 1962, pp.
22-27; July 31, 1962; pp.
64-66; November 7, 1962,
pp. 220-221.
[6]
T.S.N., November 7, 1962,
p. 220.
[7]
MD Transit and Taxi Co., Inc., vs. Santiago
Pepito, G. R. No. L-16481, September 29, 1962.
[8] T.S.N., October 2, 1962, pp. 395-398.
[9]
T.S.N., April 18, 1962, p. 271.
[10]
Zarate, et al., vs. Rizal-Manila Transit Co., G. R. Nos. L-11300 and L-11301, May 29, 1959.
[11]
Raymundo Transportation Co., vs. Perez, 56
Phil. 274.
[12]
Mindanao Bus Co., vs. Paradise, G. R. No. 38442
(1933); 58 Phil. 970. (See Pangasinan Transportation
Co., vs. Manila Railroad Co., 60 Phil. 617, 621.)
[13]
Mirasol Transportation Co., Inc., vs. Negros Travelways Corporation and
Matus, 64 Phil. 317.