GREGORIO ROBLES, PETITIONER, VS. CONCEPCION FERNANDO BLAYLOCK, JACOBO ABRAJANO, AND ALADINO ANDRADE, RESPONDENTS.

In this appeal, petitioner Gregorio Robles attacks the single
judgment of the Public Service Commission (PSC) of January 5, 1965 rendered in four cases,^[1] viz:

“In view of the foregoing, it appearing that public
convenience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by the grant of
authority for the operation of additional automobile taxicabs in the
Municipality of Olongapo, Zambales
and from said town to any place in the Island of Luzon accessible to motor
vehicle traffic and vice-versa; that the applicants herein are all Filipino
citizens and financially capable to operate the taxicab services applied for,
the Commission hereby approves the instant applications and orders the issuance
to the applicants [of] the corresponding certificate of public convenience, to
wit:

Following are the events that led to this appeal:

On December 14, 1959,
petitioner Gregorio Robles was, for the first time, issued a certificate of
public convenience and necessity by the PSC to operate a taxicab service of
five (5) units within the municipality
of Olongapo,
Zambales, and from said place to any point in the island
of Luzon accessible to motor
vehicle traffic.^[2]

On February 24, 1960,
respondent Concepcion Fernando Blay­lock applied for
PSC authority to operate a taxicab service with ten (10) units within the municipality
of Olongapo,
Zambales, and suburbs.^[3]  This application was opposed by petitioner
Robles.

On March 30, 1960,
Robles asked for, and was granted, unop­posed, an increase of five units.^[4]  Again, on July 1, 1960, PSC, upon his application, authorized him to
operate another five units.^[5]  Then, on August 15, 1960, Robles lodged another petition for
increase of equipment^[6]
for “ten (10) or more” additional units “as public necessity and
convenience may require.”  A
specific averment there was:  “That
in case the Public Service Commission finds that there is a need of more
Taxicab service in said territory, that he is willing
and ready to put up the additional service necessary.”

On September 30, 1960,
respondent Blaylock’s application, heretofore adverted to,^[7]
after hearing, was approved by the PSC for five units to be operated within Olongapo and from there, to any point in the island
of Luzon.  Oppositor Robles
appealed that case to this Court.^[8]

On October 7, 1960,
Blaylock applied with PSC for an addi­tional equipment of five units.^[9]

On December 15, 1960, PSC, upon Robles’ petition, ordered the
proceedings in pending PSC cases for additional taxicabs, namely, Cases 60-766
(application of Robles) and 60-1681 (application of Blaylock), suspended until
Robles’ appeal before this Court in G.R. No. L-17629 be
finally resolved.

While the aforesaid proceedings thus remain suspended, three
first-time applicants sought also to become operators of taxicab service in Olongapo and from there to all points in Luzon,
viz:  On
August 14, 1962, respondent
Jacobo Abrajano, for 30
units;^[10]
on July 5, 1963, respondent Aladino Andrade, for 5 units;^[11]
and on March 30, 1964,
Rolando Feliciano, for 30 units.^[12]

Then came the decision of this Court in
G. R. No. L-17629 aforementioned, promulgated on March 31, 1964.  We there affirmed
the grant of five units to respondent Blaylock, but her authority to operate
was, by this Court, “[m]odified as to the area
of operation x x x which
must be within Olongapo, Zambales,
and its suburbs.”

The foregoing decision paved the way for the resumption of
hearings in the PSC with respect to the pending taxicab service
applications.  Upon petition of Robles on
July 22, 1964, Associate
Commissioner Jose Fornier held joint hearings of the
cases of the five applicants, namely, Robles, Blaylock, Abrajano,
Andrade, and Feliciano.  Robles’
opposition to all the other applications is based upon what is known as the
prior operator rule and his expressed willingness to fill the need for
additional units.

On January 5, 1965,
PSC rendered a decision in four cases involved in this appeal.  Rolando Feliciano’s application was, for
reasons undisclosed in the record, omitted therefrom.  As men­tioned earlier in this opinion, PSC
granted authority to Robles to operate an additional ten units; to Blaylock, an
additional five units.  Newcomer Abrajano was authorized to operate twenty units; and
newcomer Andrade, five units.

Robles then filed in this Court the present petition for review
of the foregoing PSC decision.

1. Before this Court, Robles invokes the prior operator rule.  Applicability thereof is made to rest on his August 15, 1960 petition to increase
his equipment by “ten (10) or more” taxicab units in PSC Case
60-766.  He now claims that, upon the
basis of the PSC finding of necessity for forty (40) more units, and taking
away the five (5) units granted to Blaylock, he should have been awarded
thirty-five (35) units, instead of merely ten (10) units.

Since PSC already gave 10 units to Robles, the bone of con­tention
narrows down to 25 units, i.e., the 20 units PSC awarded to Abrajano
and the 5 units to Andrade.

Robles’ posture vis–a–vis
newcomers Abrajano and Andrade should be examined
together with the PSC findings that –

“x x x After a
careful examination of the evidence on record as well as the results of our own
investigation, we find that there is indeed need for authorizing additional
taxicab service in Olongapo.  We believe, however, that for the present,
the authorization of forty (40) additional units will be sufficient and
adequate to serve the needs of the public in the territory applied for
considering that both Robles and Blaylock are now operating a total of twenty
(20) units in Olongapo.  Since Robles and Blaylock have applied for
only ten (10) and five (5) addi­tional units, respectively, the other
twenty-five (25) units must be apportioned to the new applicants Abrajano and Andrade. 
Although Andrade’s application was filed later than the application of Abrajano, we believe, how­ever, that it will be
for the best interest of the public
that four taxicab operators be authorized in
a rapidly developing town like Olongapo in order to promote
a healthy and progressive competition among
them to the end that each operator
will be constrained or encouraged to maintain
the maximum degree of efficiency in his
service.”^[13]

By established jurisprudence, what has just been expressed
deserves full assent.  It has been said that
in the public service field, “[c]ompetition if
wholesome and constructive should be allowed because it
tends to promote satisfaction and efficiency in the management and operation of
the public service.”^[14]  Here, no intimation is made by Robles that the
competition offered by Abrajano and Andrade is not
“wholesome and constructive,” or that it is ruinous or destructive,
or prejudicial to him.  The paramount
consideration is public convenience, which certainly would not be served if
petitioner is allowed “to play the role of dog in the manger.”^[15]  The cardinal rule in cases of this nature, so
Mr. Justice Jose B. L. Reyes of this Court once said, “is to adhere to
what is best for the interest of the public, and favor what would best serve
the public con­venience.”^[16]  On this score alone, Robles’ appeal must
fail.

One special circumstance weighs heavily against petitioner’s
cause.  Robles’ averment in his petition
here is that the grant of 40 units to the four applicants, including himself, added to the already authorized 20 units of Robles
and Blaylock, “is a 200% increase” and “is excessive and not
reasonably supported by the evidence.” 
And a principle entitled to respect is that a grantee cannot avail of
the prior operator rule if he denies the need for more units on the same
line.^[17]

Not escaping attention is petitioner’s prayer in PSC Case No.
60-766 for authority to increase his taxicab equipment “to ten (10) or
more units as public necessity and convenience may require.” This
fact alone cannot overturn the PSC decision under review – for at least two
reasons:

First.  Implicit in the PSC decision is its finding
that Robles is financially fit to increase its taxicab service by ten units
only.  This cannot be disturbed by this
Court, unless unsupported by sub­stantial evidence.^[18]  A dig into the record shows that Robles’
financial capacity to operate more units has not been satisfactorily
established.  His assets are: (1) a 121
sq. m. – parcel of land in Sta. Rita, Olongapo, with
a current value of P5,000.00; (2) a 450 sq. m. – lot, with a house thereon,
located in Olongapo, with an assessed value of
P4,850.00; (3) a 930 sq. m. – lot and improvements thereon, in Olongapo, with an assessed value of P6,790, 00; (4) a bank
current account of P5, 000.00; (5) 40 taxicab units in Zambales
(25 units in Subic, 15 units in Olongapo),
but mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines for P87,000.00; (6) 10
taxicab units in Baguio, still mortgaged to a motor
company, the amount of which mortgage petitioner did not offer in evidence; and
(7) 9 private cars, also mortgaged, to be used by petitioner in connection with
his herein application for increased units. 
Upon petitioner’s foregoing evidence, we are not prepared to say that PSC
erred in granting Robles ten units only.

Second. 
Petitioner’s prayer for ten or more units, strongly suggests that with
the use of the phrase “or more,” he wishes to be given preference to
put up an unlimited number of additional units – more than ten – whenever
public necessity and convenience require. 
We have heretofore held that existing operators cannot be given
preference to increase their equipment if “they failed in their
obligation to apply for such increase at the time when
necessity arose.”^[19]  Petitioner then cannot, thru vague allusions
as to the number of units he desires to add to his taxicab service, or by the
simple expedient of using the words “or more”, establish a
manacle-hold on the taxicab business and prevent others from engaging in such
business.  This is an undesirable result
that this Court should, in the public interest, seek to prevent.  For, it breeds that kind of a monopoly that
rebels against the system of free enterprise; it rams headlong against the
time-tested concept of sound competition as the accepted means to promote the
general welfare; it fosters self-interest, not public con­venience.

Therefore, when Robles asked for 10 or more units, he should be
considered to have prayed only for 10 units. 
He cannot file a petition sweeping in scope that would cover or fill up
necessity for service that, to him, apparently does not as yet exist.  He should be deemed to have waived his
privilege of preference with respect to the taxicab service that exceeds 10
units.^[20]  He specified 10 units.  He proved his financial ability to operate
not more than those 10 units.  He was
given 10 units.  He has no cause for
complaint.

2. Petitioner’s gripe against the grant to Blaylock of 5 units is
upon a different setting.  Blaylock’s
authority, as it is with all the other applicants, was to operate additional
taxicabs “in the Municipality of
Olongapo,
Zambales and from said town to any place in the Island
of Luzon accessible to motor
vehicle traffic and vice-versa.”  It
is indeed true that in the previous Supreme Court case between Robles and
Blaylock (G.R. No. L-17629, promulgated March
31, 1964), Blaylock’s PSC award of 5 taxicabs was limited by this
Court, in the area of operation, to “Olongapo, Zambales, and its suburbs.”  Because there her PSC application expresses
her desire to establish a taxicab service only in Olongapo
and suburbs, and her evidence does not show that she intended to operate the
taxicab service from Olongapo to any point in Luzon
Island accessible to motor vehicle
traffic and vice-versa.

Robles complains that the grant to Blaylock
in the present case is “over a territory bigger than that originally
granted her.”  But this is true only
after the decision of this Court in G.R. No. L-17629 was rendered as
aforesaid.  The fact is that the PSC
order giving notice of Blaylock’s application herein, as published – i.e.,
before the date of this Court’s decision in G.R. No. L-17629 – speaks of her as
an authorized operator (by the PSC) “within the Municipality
of Olongapo,
Zambales, and from said municipality to any place in
the island of Luzon.”  Mrs. Blaylock’s oral evidence shows that her
proposed operation covered an area similar to that applied for by the other
applicants.  We thus perceive no error in
PSC’s approval of Blaylock’s zone of operation in the
case at bar.

3. Quite apart from all the foregoing, we note from the record a
procedural defect fatal to Robles’ present petition for review.

To perfect an appeal to this Court from a final decision of the
PSC, it is necessary to file with the PSC “a notice of appeal and with the
Supreme Court twelve (12) copies of a petition for review of the award, order
or ruling complained of, within a period of thirty (30) days from notice of
such award, order or decision.”^[21]

The PSC joint decision dated January 5, 1965 was received by petitioner on January 6, 1965.  On February
5, 1965, petitioner filed in this Court a “Motion for an
Extension of Time within which to file the Petition for Review and for Stay of
Decision Pending Review.”  Notice of
appeal was filed in the PSC only on February
12, 1965, thirty–seven days after he received notice
of the PSC joint decision.  In a
comparable situation, this Court ruled that “although the petition for
review was filed with this Court within the regle­mentary
period, petitioners filed their notice of appeal with the [Workmen’s
Compensation] Commission 5 days late or 15 days after they were notified of the
decision,” which “is certainly an error fatal to the present
action.”^[22]  The present petition merits no better
treatment.  It must be dismissed.

For the reasons given, the petition for review is
dismissed.  Costs
against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., on leave.

^[1]
PSC Case 60-766, Gregorio Robles, Applicant; PSC Case 60-1681, Concepcion Fernando Blaylock, Applicant; PSC Case 62-4654, Jacobo Abrajano, Applicant; PSC
Case 63-3820, Aladino Andrade, Applicant.

^[2] PSC Case 128020.

^[3] PSC Case 130541.

^[4] PSC Case 130299.

^[5] PSC Case 131499.

^[6]
PSC Case 60-766.

^[7] PSC Case 130541.

^[8]
G. R. No. L-17629.

^[9]
PSC Case 60-1681.

^[10]
PSC Case 62-4654.

^[11]
PSC Case 63-3820.

^[12]
PSC Case 64-2114.

^[13]
Emphasis supplied.

^[14] Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Cervo, 91 Phil. 313, 316; emphasis supplied.

^[15] Manila Yellow Taxicab vs. Public Service Commission, 90
Phil, 301, 309.

^[16] Papa vs. Santiago, 1967B Phild. 31,
35, citing In Re Gregorio, 77 Phil. 908, 914, and cases cited
therein, and Carmelo and Oriol
vs. Monserrat, 55 Phil. 644.

^[17]
La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. vs. Mendiola,
G.R. No. L-19558, April 29, 1966,
citing Isidro vs. Ocampo, G.R. No.
L-12331, May 29, 1959.

^[18] Valle Bros., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, G.R. No.
L-18694, January 31, 1966; Del Pilar Transit, Inc. vs. Silva, G.R. No. L-21547,
July 15, 1966; A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc. vs.
Japa, L-19643, July 26, 1966; Mandaluyong
Bus Co. vs. Enrique, infra; Sorita vs.
Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-20965, October 29, 1966; Bachrach Trans­portation Co., Inc. vs.
Camunayan, G.R. No. L-21168,
December 16,
1966; Red Line Transportation Co., Inc. vs.
Santo Tomas, 1967A Phild. 126,
128-129, citing Mindoro Transportation Co.,
Inc. vs. Torcuator, G.R. No. L-18479, February 28, 1963, and Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. Tambot, 95 Phil. 661.

^[19] Mandaluyong Bus
Co., Inc. vs. Enrique, G.R. No. L-21964, October 19, 1966, citing
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. City of Davao,
G.R. No. L-23080, September 20, 1965;
emphasis supplied.

^[20] Cf.:
Halili vs. Floro, 90
Phil. 245, 247; Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. City of Davao, supra; Mandaluyong Bus Co., Inc. vs. Enrique, supra.

^[21] Section 1, Rule 44, Rules of Court.

^[22] Pabores vs. The Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation
Commission, 104 Phil. 505, 509, citing Martha Lumber Co., Inc. vs.
Lagradante, 99 Phil. 434, 439.