FORTUNATO F. HALILI, PETITIONER, VS. EUSEBIO DAPLAS, RESPONDENT.

Eusebio Daplas
filed before the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of
public convenience to operate a bus service for the transportation of passengers
and freight on the line comprising Amparo Subdivision
in Caloocan City to Divisoria ( Manila) and vice-versa
employing 20 buses for that purpose. To the application Fortunato F. Halili filed an
opposition alleging, among others, that the service he is rendering on the line
covered by the application is more than sufficient to meet the demands of the
traveling public.

Both parties presented
testimonial as well as documentary evidence, and after carefully considering the
same, the Public Service Commission decided to authorize the applicant to
operate at least 12 of the 20 units applied for believing it to be sufficient to
serve the needs of the traveling public along the line covered by the
application subject to certain conditions therein specified. The oppositor interposed the present
appeal.

The evidence submitted by the
applicant tends to show that in Amparo Subdivision
there are many people living most of whom are employees working in the City of
Manila and students attending classes in the different colleges and universities
established in Manila; that these employees and students leave in the morning
and come back at noon and in the afternoon; that along the way from Amparo Subdivision to Divisoria
there are many passengers bringing their agricultural products to Divisoria and some to Blumentritt
who later return along the same line with whatever purchases they had made; that
the buses or trucks of the oppositor make irregular
trips most of which are already full to capacity upon passing Amparo Subdivision, so that the residents in the area are
having difficulty in securing means of transportation; and that this difficulty
is also being experienced by the passengers waiting along the way from Amparo Subdivision to Manila.

On the other hand, the evidence
of the oppositor tends to show that his service along
the Ipo-Divisoria line is sufficient to take care of
the passengers traveling on said line, and that he has buses entering Amparo Subdivision to serve the people residing therein who
were relatively few. He submitted the reports of the checkers who were posted in
two different checking points to observe the flow of the passengers along the
line applied for which point out that there is no public necessity for the
additional bus service desired by the applicant. On this point, applicant also
presented as rebuttal evidence the report made by another inspector on the
checking he underwent at barrio Baesa wherein it is
shown that oppositor’s buses, whether coming or going
to Manila, were loaded to capacity with instances of
overloading.

We note that the applicant has
submitted quite a substantial evidence in support of
his application. Thus, the testimonial evidence consisted in the testimonies of
applicant himself, of Benjamin Salazar, a resident of Novaliches, Quezon City, Leopoldo Garcia, another resident of Quezon City, and Corona B. Venal, a practising lawyer and a resident of Amparo Subdivision. In addition, applicant also submitted
documentary evidence consisting of a petition submitted by the people affected
in the line applied for and the reports of two checkers prepared by duly
authorized agents of the Public Service Commission. Of course, oppositor likewise presented testimonial and documentary
evidence to show that there was no public necessity for the approval of the
instant application, among which we notice two employees of Halili Transit which is by oppositor, like Antonio Santiago, as inspector, and Alfredo
dela Cruz, its operation manager. He also submitted
the reports of two checkers who made a similar observation regarding the flow of
passengers on the line applied for.

The Public Service Commission,
after weighing carefully the evidence of both petitioner and oppositor, reached the conclusion that there is still room
for an increase in the bus service that was then in operation on the line
applied for, for which reason it authorized the applicant to operate at least 12
of the 20 units applied for. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission made
the following comment:

“* * * Even the testimony of
Inspector Antonio Santiago of oppositor, reveals that
oppositor is operating only three buses making only
nine round trips during the day which is clearly inadequate for the residents of
Amparo Subdivision. And even Isabel Dikit, another witness for oppositor, testified that buses of the oppositor coming from the direction of Ipo, upon passing the Amparo
Subdivision Gate, have already seating capacity resulting in the difficulty of
residents of the Subdivision who have to wait at the Gate to secure
accommodation in said buses. This clearly corroborate the testimonies of the
witnesses of applicant to the effect that people residing in the Amparo Subdivision arc having difficulty in riding in the
buses of oppositor passing in the national read in
front of Amparo Subdivision. There being evidence that
applicant is a Filipino citizen and financially qualified to maintain and
operate the proposed service, the opposition filed herein is hereby overruled, *
* *.”

It appearing that the Commission
has found enough substantial evidence to support its conclusion that then is
further room for authorizing the operation of additional bus service on the line
applied for, which evidence is not only testimonial but documentary, we have no
other alternative than to affirm the same since we are not authorized to
substitute our conclusion for that of the commission. The rule is that the
Commission’s findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, are
conclusive upon this Court. We are only authorized to modify or ignore them when
it clearly appears that there is no evidence to support reasonably such
conclusion^[1]. More specifically, this Court said: “Whether
public necessity and convenience warrant the putting up of additional service on
the part of the appellee, is a question of fact which
the Public Service Commission has found in the affirmative. This finding, being
supported by sufficient evidence, should not be disturbed” (Raymundo Transportation Company vs. Cervo, 91 Phil. 313).

With regard to the claim that the
service proposed by applicant, far from promoting public interest, would only
result in ruinous competition with the established transportation service of
oppositor, suffice it to quote what we said in a
similar case:

“* * * In order
that the opposition based on ruinous competition may prosper, it must be shown
that the opponent ‘would be deprived of fair profits on the capital invested in
its business.
The mere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not
sufficient to prove ruinous competition. It must be shown that the business
would not have sufficient gains to pay a fair rate of interest on its capital
investment.’ (Manila Electric Co. vs. Pasay
Transportation Co., 66 Phil. 36, 6 L.J. 1117). Mere
allegations by the oppositor that its business would
be ruined by the establishment of the ice plants proposed by the applicants ‘are
not sufficient to warrant this court to revoke the order of the Public Service
Commission.’ (Teodora Santos Vda. de Pilares vs. Consuelo Arranz, G. R. No. 45462, July 28, 1938.” (Ice & Cold Storage Industries of the Philippines Inc.
vs. Valero, 85 Phil., 7).

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is
affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.
P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]Javellana vs. La Paz Ice Plant and
Cold Storage Co., 63 Phil., 621; Philippine Shipowner’s Association vs. Public Utility
Commissioner, 43 Phil., 328; San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid, G3 Phil. 539; Ice & Cold Storage Industries of
the Phil. Inc. vs. Valero, 85 Phil. 7.