SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JOSE SAMALA, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Jose Samala, an authorized operator of twelve (12) TPU
buses on the Lines Cavite City-Manila and Cavite City-Balara U.P.
site), and vice-versa, sought authority to operate twelve (12)
additional units on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays on the
Lines Cavite City-Santa Cruz (Manila) and Cavite City-Divisoria
(Manila). Petitioner, Saulog Transit, Inc., another authorized operator
of TPU bus service between Cavite City and Manila, including the lines
covered by respondent’s application, objected thereto.

Samala introduced testimonial evidence to the effect that there are
numerous students and employees who come to Manila from Cavite City on
Mondays and return to Cavite City on Saturdays; that many people from
Cavite attend religious services in Baclaran, on Wednesdays, and in
Quiapo, on Fridays; and that the TPU buses covering the route in
question are insufficient to accommodate the passengers, a good many of
whom are left on the roads and have to suffer long delays.

Upon the other hand, the witnesses for Saulog Transit, Inc.
testified that the increase in the volume of passengers on Mondays,
Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays is not such as to be beyond the
capacity of the units already authorized to operate on the lines
aforementioned to accommodate.

In view of the conflicting nature of the evidence thus introduced,
the Public Service Commission assigned two (2) of its agents to check
the volume of passengers traveling along the aforementioned lines for
one week. Upon submission of the report of said agents, the Commission
rendered its decision granting Samala the authority to operate six (6)
additional auto-trucks on the line Cavite City-Divisoria (Manila) on
Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, in accordance with a time
schedule which the Time Schedule Section of said Commission was thereby
ordered to prepare for approval, within fifteen (15) days from notice
of said decision. A reconsideration thereof having been denied, the
case is now before us on petition for review by the Saulog Transit, Inc.

The decision appealed from, from which Commissioner Aspillera
dissented, appears to have been decisively influenced by the increase
in the number of passengers traveling on the line in question on
Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Thus, after noting that the
volume of the traffic for the period covered by the checking made by
the agents was:

the Commission said, in the decision appealed from:

“x x x Thus, it can be observed that the report of
our checkers confirm the allegations and the evidence presented by the
applicant that on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays there are
really more passengers traveling between Cavite City and Manila than on
the other days of the week. Considering this increase in the number of
passengers and the existing number of units authorized for said line,
we believe that public interest will be promoted in a proper and
suitable manner by an increase of six (6) more units instead of the
twelve (12) applied for to be operated only on Mondays, Wednesdays,
Fridays and Saturdays.”

The very report of said agents discloses, however, the fact that,
despite the increase in the volume of the traffic on Mondays,
Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, most of the buses being: operated on
the line in question Were only half-full. As Commissioner Aspillera
observed in his dissent:

“x x x I think that the preponderance of the
evidence establishes that there is at present adequate service between
Manila and Cavite. Indeed, in previous cases the Commission had
denied applications for new services on the same line because Of a
finding that transportation facilities now existing are sufficient.
The opposition stresses that according to the checking made by the
agent on the Commission for one week, it was observed that on Mondays,
Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays more passengers were checked than on
the other day, but it overlooks the fact that on the basis of the
very report of checking it will be seen that those passengers were all
accommodated in buses operating on the days of checking and with very
very few exceptions the buses checked traveled on an average of less
than half load, thus showing that even with this additional volume
of traffic on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays all the
passengers traveling can still be adequately accommodated in the buses
presently authorized.” (Italics supplied.)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the
petition of respondent Jose Samala, accordingly denied, with costs
against the latter. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.