BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., VS. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN, RESPONDENT.

On April
23, 1962,
Gavino Camunayan filed with
the Public Service Commission an application for
authority to operate a bus service, for the transportation of passengers and
freight, on the line Cordon (Isabela)—Buguey (Cagayan), with 15
auto-trucks. Soon thereafter, Bachrach Transportation
Co., Inc.—a domestic corporation engaged in the business of operating and
maintaining a fleet of buses for the transportation of passengers and freights
between Manila and different points in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela and Cagayan—objected to
said application. After appropriate proceedings, the Commission rendered
judgment on March 5, 1963, directing the issuance to Camunayan of a certificate of public convenience to operate
a PUB auto-truck service on the line Ilagan (Isabela)—Buguey (Cagayan) via Tuguegarao and
Aparri and vice-versa, with 15 units. Hence, this
petition for review by said corporation, upon the ground that the Commission has
erred: “in granting the respondent” the aforementioned certificate of authority
to operate; “in holding that public convenience will be served in a proper and
suitable manner by granting” said authority; and “in overruling the opposition
of the petitioner” herein.

In this connection, the decision
appealed from says:

“From the foregoing evidences
adduced by the parties, the Commission believes that applicant has sufficiently
proved that there is public need for the proposed service. It is quite
inconceivable that the Rural Transit could have survived in its transportation
business in the Cagayan Valley through all these years if it
were true that the usual load of its buses is only from 2 to 12 passengers. No
evidence was presented by the oppositor to show that
they have been suffering phenomenal losses on the line in question due to the
negligible volume of passengers. Besides, if oppositor’s claim is true, it could at least have presented
its records to show the actual passenger load of its buses on said line.
Moreover, it appears that there are no operators providing a direct service from
Ilagan to Buguey.
Significantly, majority of the witnesses of oppositor
are its own employees whose testimony cannot be accorded much weight because of
their special relationship with the oppositor.

“On the whole, the Commission
finds the weight of the evidence is in favor of the applicant. Consequently, the
opposition filed by the oppositor herein is hereby
OVERRULED.

“In view hereof, and considering
that public convenience will be served in a proper and suitable manner by the
approval of this application, and their being sufficient evidence that applicant
is a Filipino citizen and financially capable, the Commission hereby rules that
the application herein applied for may be, as it is hereby GRANTED to applicant
and certificate of public convenience be issued authorizing him to operate a PUB
auto-truck service on the line Ilagan (Isabela)—Buguey (Cagayan), and vice versa, with the use of fifteen (15) units
x x x.”

It is well settled, however, that
findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interferred with by courts of justice in the absence of a
grave abuse of discretion on the part of said bodies or unless the
aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence (La Mallorca & Pampanga Bus Co.,
Inc. vs. Mercado, G. R.No. L-19120,
November 29,
1965; Halili vs. Daplas, G. R.
No. L-20282, May 19,
1965; West Leyte Trans. Co. vs. Salazar, G. R. No. L-15418,
September 30,
1963; Pangasinan Trans. Co. vs. Feliciano, G. R.
No. L-14401, August 31,
1962; A.L. Ammen Trans. Co. vs. Desuyo, G. R.
No. L-10372, Hay 14, 1953; Guico vs. Buan, G.R. No. L-9769,
August 30,
1957; Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. vs. Vegamore, G.
R. No.
L-9445, April 29, 1957; Pangasinan Trans. Co. vs. De
la Cruz, 95 Phil. 273; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. vs. Danon, 53 Phil. 75). Petitioner herein has not established,
either the absence of such evidence, or said abuse of discretion.

Indeed, petitioner argues that
“the decision of the Commission granting respondent authority to operate on the
line Ilagan (Isabela) to
Buguey (Cagayan) via Tuguegarao and vice-versa, is not reasonably supported by
the evidence and contrary to law”; that “the decision in question by the
Public Service Commission is contrary to a long line of decisions of this
Honorable Court and, therefore, contrary to law, and, thereafter, to declare and
hold that said decision of the Commission is not reasonably supported by
evidence“; and that “the Commission in its decision have (has) completely
disregarded the testimonies of the witnesses for the petitioner and gave
credibility to the testimonies of the witnesses of the respondent, who are
mere casual observers whose observations are limited to occasional trips during
their travels, compared to the actual observations every day on different hours
of the day and night by persons whose main and sole concern is transportation
business.” (Italics ours.)

In other words, petitioner merely
assails the conclusions of the Commission as regards the credibility of
the opposing witnesses. (Red Line Trans. Co. vs. Barrizo, G. R. No. L-19304,
August 31,
1964; Flash Taxicab Co. vs. Cruz, G.
R. Nos.
L-15464 and L-16255, March 30, 1963; Raymundo Trans.
Co. vs. Cervo, 91 Phil. 313; Halili vs. Ice & Cold Storage, 77 Phil. 823; Espiritu vs. San Miguel Brewery, 63 Phil. 615; Estate of
Buan vs. Pampanga Bus Co.,
53 Off. Gaz. 8553,) Apart from the fact that such
conclusions are, in general, not reviewable in a
proceeding of this nature, the record before us fails to show that said
Commission had erred in relying upon the testimony of the witnesses for Camunayan and in giving no credence to that of petitioner’s
witnesses. In fact, whereas most of the latter were its own employees, the
former, excluding Camunayan, did not appear to have
any improper motive to testify as they did. What is more, respondent’s witnesses
were Ricardo Paguirigan, Mayor of Ilagan, Cesar N. Comin, the Chief
of Police thereof, Severino Torres, an Agricultural
Machinery salesman of GAMI, with official station in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, who covers
the whole area of the Cagayan Valley, and Jerundio Tarobal, an old resident
of Ilagan, Isabela, and a
farmer by occupation, whose testimony discloses nothing that would impair their
veracity.

It is urged, however, that the
Commission granted appellee a line longer than that
applied for; but, this is not a fact, for the line covered by the application
was Cordon (Isabela)—Buguey
(Cagayan), which was shortened to Ilagan (Isabela)—Buguey (Cagayan). It is true that
the line granted was via Tuguegarao and Aparri, instead of via Dugo
Junction, as stated by respondent’s counsel in open court. But, this is of no
consequence, inasmuch as the application was for a direct line from Cordon
(Isabela) to Buguey (Cagayan), without specifying whether it should be
via Dugo Junction or via Tuguegarao and Aparri.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is
hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.