LA MALLORCA AND PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA, RESPONDENT.

An
application was filed with the Public Service Commission on February 1,
1962 by Cirilo D. Mendiola to operate four (4) units of jitneys by TPU
(now PUJ) service on the San Fernando-Guagua line in Pampanga. It was
opposed by La Mallorca and the Pampanga Bus Co.—two services under
joint management—which alleged that there was no need for the services
applied for in view of the adequate and efficient service already being
rendered by them.

The Public Service Commission, on February
16, after hearing, rendered a decision authorizing the applicant to
operate two (2) units of jitneys by PUJ service at the aforesaid San
Fernando-Guagua line. From said decision the oppositors appealed to
this Court by filing on March 23, 1962 the instant petition for review.

Subsequently, it was discovered that six exhibits for the oppositors
(Exhs. 1, 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D and 1-E)—consisting of reports of an
observer on the volume of motor vehicles for hire and passenger load on
the San Fernando-Guagua line—were lost in the Public Service Commission
and thus are not among the records elevated to this Court.

A
reconstitution of the lost exhibits was ordered by resolution of this
Court on July 8, 1963. Reconstitutlon however failed because of lack of
duplicates and inability of the witness to recollect the evidence.
Petitioners thereupon moved to set aside the appealed decision and
remand the case for taking of evidence anew.

In an extended
resolution on November 29, 1963, we denied said motion. Speaking thru
Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, this Court said that its sole mission in this
case Is to ascertain whether it clearly appears that there was evidence
before the Public Service Commission to reasonably support its decision
that the present number of vehicles operating on the San
Pernando-Guagua line is not sufficient to cope with the number of
passengers on said line. It further stated that what the sole issue
called for was “a pronouncement that primarily depends on the character
of the applicant’s evidence, which has not been lost” because in cases
of this nature we are not supposed to weigh conflicting evidence and
substitute our own conclusions thereon.^[1]

Accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the issue of whether the Public
Service Commission’s finding that the present number of units operating
on the San Fernando-Guagua line is not sufficient to cope with the
number of passengers therein, is supported by substantial evidence.

From the applicant’s evidence, testimonies of passengers, it is clearly
shown that the buses and jitneys serving the San Fernando-Guagua line
are usually loaded to standing capacity and many people are left along
the route waiting for available transportation (Record, pp. 82-83,
94-95). In fact, petitioners’ own witness, Policarpio Pineda, testified
that private jeeps haul and receive passengers along the afore-stated
line (Record, p. 132), a clear indication that the authorized services
are lacking.

Petitioners would however dwell on the
disagreement among the Public Service Commissioners, in their decision,
as to the present number of vehicles operating along the San
Fernando-Guagua line. Associate Commissioner Gabriel P. Prieto, the ponente,
stated that ten (10) jitneys and six (6) buses operate on said line;
Commissioner Alejandro A. Galang, who concurred in part and dissented
in part, and Associate Commissioner Antonio H. Aspillera, who
dissented, said seventy-nine (79) jitneys operated thereon.

The reason for the above difference is that the ponente
referred to units operating strictly between San Itrnando and Guagua,
whereas his colleagues included all units passing the San
Fernando-Guagua line, even those starting and/or ending in places other
than San Fernando and Guagua (Exh. 4, Record, p. 10).

For
purposes of the issue herein, the foregoing consideration is not
decisive. Substantial evidence still Supports the finding of the Public
Service Commission, through the ponente, concurred in by
Commissioner Galang, that at least two (2) more units are needed in the
San Fernando-Guagua line, premised on the fact that—notwithstanding the
vehicles already operating on said line—passengers usually have to
stand inside the vehicles and that frequently many people along the way
are not able to ride but must stand and waife. Such a situation Is not
difficult to understand, for many of the units passing said line are
express services, which cannot pick up passengers along the way, but
only in the town proper, as testified to by petitioners’ witness
Severino Jimenez (Record, p. 143).

Finally, petitioners do not invoke the prior operator rule; neither could they, since they deny the need
for more units on the line.^[2]

Wherefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission authorizing the applicant
to operate two (2) units of jitneys by PUJ service at the San
Fernando-Guagua line, Pampanga, is hereby affirmed, with costs against
petitioners. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Ice & Cold Storage Industries of the Phil., Inc. vs. Valero, 85 Phil. 7; Halili vs. Isip, L-2458, January 28, 1950.

^[2] Isidro vs. Ocampo, 105 Phil., 911.