MANDBUSCO, INC., MANDALUYONG BUS CO., INC., PRECILO CAMAGANACAN, BLAS REYES AND ANASTACIO ESMAO, PETITIONERS, VS. PABLO FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT.

The respondent Pablo Francisco applied for a certificate of
public convenience covering the operation of five (5) PUJ jitneys from
barrio Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, Rizal
to the intersection of High­way 54 and Shaw Boulevards, Mandaluyong,
Rizal (otherwise known as the “Crossing”)
and vice–versa.  Hearing
was conducted, after due notice and publication, enabling both the respondent
applicant and the oppositors Mandbusco
Inc., et al., to adduce their respec­tive evidence.  On June 15, 1964 a decision was rendered by
the Public Service Commission granting the respondent’s application, it
appearing to a division of three commissioners that:

“After [a] careful study of the evidence pre­sented by the
parties, the Commission finds that the proposed service will benefit the people
of Bo. Pinagbuhatan considering that there is no
direct ser­vice from that place to the crossing of Highway 54 and Shaw
Blvd.  It
can be noted also that the provin­cial capitol, provincial hospital and other
big esta­blishments are located past the Poblacion of
Pasig and nearer to the other proposed terminal at
Highway 54 and Shaw Blvd.
and that residents from Pinagbuhatan have to take 2
rides to reach these places”

The dispositive portion of the decision
reads:

“Finding further from the evidence adduced by the applicant
that he is [a] Filipino citizen, le­gally and financially capable [of operating
and main­taining] the same, the oppositions filed in this case are hereby
overruled and the certificate of public convenience applied for, may be, as it
is hereby GRANTED to the applicant …. x x x“

It is mainly at the findings above-quoted that the petitioners,
all bus operators, have aimed their present petition for review, following the
rejection of their motion for reconsideration by the Commission en banc.

The petitioners want to make capital of the declarations of their
two witnesses, Federico Dantayana and Arturo Clemente.  Let us
appraise these declarations.

Dantayana, an official inspector of the
Commission, testi­fied that he posted himself somewhere along the route covered
by the respondent’s application, and conducted a survey of the number of
passenger vehicles availing themselves of the use of the Shaw Boulevard in
going to and coming from Pasig, Rizal.  The inspec­tion sheets offered in evidence
show that buses with a usual load­ing capacity of from 65 to 75 passengers each
were barely half – filled on the whole, while “jitneys” with a usual
loading capacity of 13 passengers each actually carried an average of only 6
passen­gers each for every trip.  These
facts, the petitioners argue, illus­trate an excess of available passenger
vehicles over the actual needs of the riding public.  They negate the advisability of allowing the
applicant’s “jitneys” to serve the route between barrio Pinag­buhatan and the crossing of Highway 54 and Shaw
Boulevard in Mandaluyong.

Closely scrutinizing Dantayana’s
testimony, we cannot acquiesce in the petitioners’ conclusions.  The length of the route which the respondent
applied for is divided into two parts. 
The first starts at barrio Pinagbuhatan and
ends at the poblacion of the town of Pasig.  The second begins at the poblacion
and winds up at the crossing of Highway 54 and Shaw
Boulevard in Mandaluyong.  Dantayana’s survey
covered passenger vehicles passing through the second part of the route applied
for.  It appears, however, that the
second part is actually only a converging point for passenger vehicles coming
from towns east of Pasig, not to mention other
passenger vehicles, equally numerous, destined for Manila com­ing from their
terminals located in the Pasig poblacion
itself.  In short, Dantayan’s
survey does not at all indicate the volume of the traffic of passenger vehicles
coming all the way from barrio Pinagbuhatan.  After all, the primary objective of the grant
of the certificate of public convenience in question was the welfare of the
inhabitants of barrio Pinagbuhatan and other
inhabitants along the first part of the route applied for.

The petitioners’ only other witness, Arturo Clemente,
the president of both the Mandbusco, Inc. and of the Pasig-Manila Bus Operators Association, testified that a
total of 125 buses are operating between Pasig, Rizal and Quiapo, Manila, all
taking the Shaw Boulevard, which thoroughfare is part of the route applied for
by the respondent.  Likewise a total of
51 “jitneys” serve that same portion of Shaw
Boulevard to and from various points in Pasig.  In addition, a total of 171 buses coming from
towns east of Pasig pass daily through the latter
town, proceed to Shaw Boule­vard, and then to Manila.  All these public conveyances, the wit­ness
pointed out, are more than adequate to meet the transporta­tion, needs of the
riding public in the areas served.  The
petitioners, the witness added, have made substantial investments in their bu­siness
and, therefore, the allowance of additional public transpor­tation vehicles,
clearly unneeded, would result in ruinous compe­tition and threaten the
stability of their financial positions.

This argument suffers, however, from the same basic oversight
afflicting the testimony of Dantayana.  All the vehicles mentioned by Clemente, except possibly for two buses – a matter which we
will shortly discuss – do not run the full course of the route applied for by
the respondent.  The overlapping of
service exists only with regard to the second part of that route, and this is
clearly unavoidable since the stretch of road from the Pasig poblacion
to the crossing serves as a common access to Highway 54 whence passengers
embark for separate destinations.

In the course of the hearing the petitioners presented a
certificate of public convenience allowing the Mandaluyong
Bus Co., Inc. to utilize two of their buses, and a third as reserve, for the
line from Pinagbuhatan (Pasig, Rizal)
to Plaza Miranda (Quiapo, Manila)
via Mandaluyong, Rizal.  This, according to pe­titioners, should
completely negate the finding of the Commission that there exists no direct
service from barrio Pinagbuhatan to the crossing of
Highway 54 and Shaw Boulevard.  We disagree. 
The certificate of public convenience adverted to merely proves that
authority has been given to the grantee to operate public utility ve­hicles in
the designated territory.   It cannot
serve as proof that the grantee has made actual use of such authority.  Lacking any positive proof that the
petitioners (or any of them) adequately serve the transportation requirements
of the inhabitants of barrio Pinag­buhatan and the
adjacent places, we are not inclined to overturn the finding of fact of the
Commission, realizing as we do, after a reading of the record, that the same is
reasonably supported by evidence.^[1]

The petitioners invoke the “old operator rule,” which
is to the effect that a public utility operator should be shielded from ruinous
competition by affording him the opportunity to improve his equipment and
service before allowing a new operator to serve in the same territory he
covers.^[2]
This rule has no application in this case because the certificate of public
convenience granted to the respondent is a maiden franchise covering the
particular line connecting barrio Pinagbuhatan and
the crossing of Highway 54 and Shaw Boulevard.  The certificate of public convenience autho­rizing
the Mandaluyong Bus Co. Inc. to operate two buses,
with one reserve, on the line extending from barrio Pinagbuhatan
to Plaza Miranda in Quiapo, Manila, while in a sense
overlapping with the authority given to the respondent, was essentially
intended to cover the great distance run between barrio Pinagbuhatan
and Quiapo, Manila, via Pasig
Boulevard, P. Sanchez, V. Mapa, Va­lenzuela, Old Sta.
Mesa, Sta. Mesa Boulevard, Legarda, Tanduay, P. Casal, Ayala Bridge, Concepcion, Arrocerds, Quezon Bridge and Quezon
Boulevard.  Upon the other hand, the
grant in favor of the respondent covers only a brief shuttle run of 8
kilometers link­ing barrio Pinagbuhatan directly with
the Pasig
poblacion and the crossing of Highway 54 and Shaw
Boulevard. 
The Commission favored the respondent with the certificate of public
convenience in question; we are not prepared to substitute our discretion with
that of the Public Service Commission in the determination of what can best
meet the requirements of public convenience.

The ability of the respondent to finance the maintenance and
operation of the service he applied for is likewise questioned by the
petitioners.  This issue is now academic
for the reason that the respondent has, since his receipt of the franchise,
actually registered the five units covered by the authority.  He has, moreover, registered one reserve unit
for the same line, with the approval of the Commission.  These units, plus the assets he proved he
owns, .are sufficient guaranty that the respondent can sustain the service he
applied for.^[3]

The petitioners, in their brief, invoke the Public Service
Commission Memorandum, of May 15, 1963
and its Supplemental Memorandum of July
22, 1963, with a view to establishing that the certificate of
public convenience in favor of respondent was issued in violation of these
memoranda.  The first memorandum comes as
a suggestion to all Commissioners that action on all pending applications for
certificates of public convenience for the opera­tion of passenger service in
Manila, Quezon City, Pasay
City, Caloocan, Mandaluyong,
Parañaque, San Juan and Makati,
be sus­pended until further studies could be made.  The supplemental memorandum contains an order
addressed to the Secretary of the Commission enjoining him from calendaring for
hearing or for continuation of hearing any application for passenger service in
Manila and suburbs; and any decision purporting to have been ren­dered prior to
May 15, 1963 but had not been turned over to the Secretary and recorded prior
to the date of the order, should be withheld until further orders.  It is not difficult to see that the ter­ritory
applied for is not among the ones enumerated in the Memo­randum of May 15, 1963.  The respondent’s service stretches main­ly
across the town of Pasig
in Rizal, and if it abuts into a tiny fraction of Mandaluyong, one of the areas covered by the enume­ration,
the incursion is incidental and does not necessarily ren­der Mandaluyong the mainstream of the respondent’s
service.  Moreover, even if the memoranda
in question comprehend the pre­sent application, still public welfare and
convenience, where po­sitively found by the Commission to be subserved, should prevail.^[4]

ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, JBL,  Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., in the result.

Barredo, J., took no part.

^[1]
San Ildefonso Electric Plant, Inc. vs. Ealivag Electric Light and Power Co., Inc., L-26770 &
L-26771, March 25, 1969, 27 SCRA 404, 411 and the cases cited therein. See also
Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc. vs. Mun. of Morong, Rizal, L-20993 &. L-21221, September 28, 1968, 25 SCRA 285, 294-295.

^[2] Halili vs. Cruz, L-21061, June 27, 1988, 23 SCRA 1174, 1181-1182.

^[3]
Red Line Transportation Co., Inc, et al. vs. Santo Tomas, L-18584,
January 30, 1967, 19 SCRA 148, 151-152; Panga­sinan
Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Tambot, 95 Phil.
661.

^[4]
Valle Bros., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, et al., L-18694, January 31, 1966, 16 SCRA, 39, 44-45.