HERMOGENES TARUC, PETITIONER, VS. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., AND REDLINE TRANSPORTATION CO., RESPONDENTS.

This is an appeal by certiorari, taken by Hermogenes Taruc, from a decision of the Public Service Commission.

It appears that, on or about August 21, 1951, Hermogenes Taruc filed
therein an application for authority to operate an auto-bus service of
twenty-six (26) units over six lines, with the following terminals:

1. Cabanatuan City—Dagupan City
2. Camiling (Tarlac)—Ilagan (Isabela)
3. Lingayen (Pangasinan)—Jones (Isabela)
4. Manila—Malig (Isabela)
5. Maddela (Nueva Vizcaya)—San Vicente (Cagayan) via two routes, and
6. Lingayen (Pangasinan)—Malig (Isabela) (Petitioner’s brief, p. 1)

Said application was opposed by the Bachrach Motor Co., the
Pangasinan Transportation Co. and the Redline Transportation Co. In due
course, Hon. Quintin Paredes, Jr., Associate Commissioner of Public
Service, then Acting Commissioner thereof—Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo
and Senior Associate Commissioner Gabriel P. Prieto, being on leave, at
the time—rendered a decision, dated May 22, 1952, overruling said
oppositions and granting in toto the aforementioned
application of appellant Taruc. Later on, or on June 4, 1952, Senior
Associate Commissioner Prieto, who had meanwhile reported for duty,
filed an opinion concurring nunc pro tunc in said decision of
Associate Commissioner Paredes. Within the 30 days period therein
granted, however, appellant was able to register only eleven (11) of
the twenty-six (26) units in question, for which reason he sought an
extension of time to register the remaining fifteen (15) units. Action
upon this request for extension of time was deferred by Commissioner
Ocampo, pending resolution of the motions for reconsideration filed in
the meantime by said oppositors. Subsequently, on or about October 3,
19527 acting upon said motions for reconsideration, Associate
Commissioner Paredes rendered an opinion denying the same and adhering
to his original decision. However, Senior Associate Commissioner Prieto
rendered a concurring and dissenting opinion, which was concurred in by
Commissioner Ocampo, the effect of which concurring and dissenting
opinion was to modify the original decision, as follows:

(a) By denying petitioner’s application as regards the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th lines above mentioned;

(b)
By limiting the fifth line—which was originally Maddela (Nueva
Vizcaya)—San Vicente (Cagayan)—to Jones (Isabela)-San Vicente
(Cagayan); and

(c) By reducing the authorized equipment from twenty- six (26) units to twelve (12) units.

A reconsideration of the decision, as thus amended, having been
denied, Taruc now seeks a review, by certiorari, of said amended
decision, upon the ground that:

I

“The
Public Service Commission erred in holding that petitioner does not
possess sufficient assets to acquire and operate 26 units authorized
him in the original decision.

II

“The
Public Service Commission erred in holding that petitioner adduced
insufficient evidence an the lines Camiling-Ilagan, Lingayen-Jones,
Maddela-San Vicente, and Manila-Malig, to warrant the grant of a
certificate of public convenience over the same,

III

“The Public Service Commission erred in modifying its decision dated May 22, 1952.”

Referring to the first assignment of error, Taruc testified that the
26 units applied for by him would cost P182,000.00 for the chasis
alone, and P10,400 for the bodies, or the total sum of P 192,400; and
that he had only P7,000 in cash, in addition to the following real
property:

Area and Kind of Land	Market Value Estimated by Appellant	Assessed Value
(a) Twenty-two (22) Hectares of tobacco land in Santiago, Isabela	P22,000.00	P2,130.00
(b) Ten (10) hectares of riceland in the same place	10,000.00	2,000.00
(c) Five and a half (5%) hectares of riceland in Munoz, Nueva Ecija	8,000.00	2,000.00
Ten (10) hectares of riceland in Mayantoc, Tarlac	8,000.00	2,000.00

All together these lands, according to petitioner’s testimony, are
worth P48,000, although its aggregate assessed value is P8,130 only. If
we add to these sums the P7,000 in cash in appellant’s possession, the
result is that his assets range from P15,130. to P55,000, if his
testimony were taken on its face value. In addition, however, to the
sum of P192,000 which is the initial cost of the 26 units applied for
by appellant, he would have to establish, operate and maintain a garage
and a repair shop, acquire the necessary equipment, spare parts, tires,
etc., pay the corresponding registration fees, licenses and taxes, and
defray other incidental expenses. It is thus obvious that appellant’s
assets are grossly insufficient to permit the acquisition, maintenance
and adequate operation of said 26 units. Indeed, it would appear that
although, before the institution of this case, appellant had been
authorized to operate other lines, he eventually failed to do so, in
violation of the certificate of public convenience issued in his favor.
What is more, even the lines which the amended decision appealed from
had authorized him to operate, were subsequently abandoned by him
according to a petition for cancellation filed by one of the oppositors
herein, which is still pending determination in the Public Service
Commission. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is clearly
untenable.

This renders it unnecessary to discuss the other assignments of
error made in petitioner’s brief. Suffice it to add that said
assignments of error hinge on whether the services being rendered by
duly authorized operators of public utility in the four lines which
were denied to appellant and in a portion of the fifth line eliminated
by the amended decision satisfy the requirements of public convenience
or public interest. Said amended decision impliedly resolved this
question in the affirmative. Upon the other hand, appellant does not
deny the existence in the record of competent evidence in support of
said conclusion. In effect, however, he now assails the sufficiency of
the aforementioned evidence. Such question can not be entertained on
appeal by certiorari, in which the conclusions of fact of the Public
Service Commission which can not be disturbed so long as the same are
borne out by some evidence, as in the case at bar.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.