ALATCO TRANSPORTATION, INC., BICOL TRANSPORTATION CO., AND CONSOLIDATED AUTO LINES, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. ROSALIO S. BONETE, JR., RESPONDENT.

Petition for review of the decision of the Public Service
Commission, in its Case No. 64-6040, awarding a certificate of public
convenience to the applicant, the herein respondent Rosalio
S. Bonete,
Jr., and authorizing to operate a PUB auto-truck service of four (4) units
(instead of six [6] units applied for) on the route Naga
City-legaspi, via Libon.

For lack of opposition despite due publication and notice to all
affected operators along the line, the application for the said certificate,
filed on 9 November 1964,
was heard ex parte by the Commission on
3 March 1965.  However, before decision could be rendered,
the herein petitioners, Alatco Transportation, Inc., Bicol Transportation Co., Inc., and Consolidated Auto
Lines, filed a motion to set aside the proceedings, alleging that they are
affected operators but that due to lack of communications caused by a strike of
their employees they could not contact their lawyer in Manila for him to file on
time their opposition to the application. 
The Commission denied the motion to set aside the proceedings but
allowed the movants to file their formal opposition
and to adduce their evidence thereafter.

The trial having been completed, the Commission, on 8 September 1965, rendered judgment for the applicant.

In due time, the oppositors filed the
present petition for review with this Court, on the grounds that the Public
Service Commission gravely abused its discretion:  (1) by holding that there is a public
necessity and demand for the approval
of the application; and (2) by holding that the applicant is legally and
financially qualified to operate the service applied for.

The evidence upon which the Commission found a public necessity
for the proposed service and the financial capacity of the applicant rests on
the tes­timonies of said applicant and of one Celso Bombase, plus certain documentary evidence.  The witnesses testified that they travel
quite regularly from Naga to Legaspi,
a distance of 105 kilometers; Bonete, in order to
collect from clients who purchased trucks or spare parts from him or from
Yang’s Auto Supply, where he is employed as a salesman; Bombase,
who is a government employee, to audit some governmental finances.  They had observed that there are several
operators in and along the route but that they could not cope with the needs of
the riding public.

As to his financial capacity, Bonete,
Jr. testified in his own behalf, stating that he receives a salary of P120 a month as salesman, aside from
commission; that in 1964 he had a gross income of P4,149.71 and a net income of
P3,734.74, as shown in his income tax return, Exhibit “H”; that he owns real properties, unregistered but
declared in his name (Exhibits “K”, “K-1”, “K-2”
and “K-3”), with an assessed value of P11,000.00 and a market value of
P61,000.00; this real property was given
to him by his father in 1964 to meet the financial require­ments of his
application and for his own security, he being the only son but with a sister
who is already married; that he has a deposit of P2,030.00, on a current account, with the Bank of the Philippine
Islands (Exhibit “L”); and that he has bought two (2) trucks, one of
which is invoiced by Exhibit “M”, and has another one which is a
second hand bus type.

The testimony of the oppositors‘ lone
witness, Jose Arroyo, was to the effect that the passenger load of the buses of
the three (3) oppositor transportation companies
during rush hours was only 70% on weekends, 50% on mid weeks, and 40% during
lean hours.  The Commission disbelieved
this witness because he is employed by the oppositors
as their common supervisor.

 No evidence was presented
to rebut the financial capacity of applicant Bonete,
Jr.

The argument of the petitioners, oppositors
below, on their first assigned error is principally aimed at the credibility of
applicant’s witness Bombase.  Thus, they claim that he was evasive when
asked about his position in the government; that he should be a degree-holder
to qualify for auditing government accounts, and that his work, even if true,
is limited to only one province; and that his testimony about the need for more buses in the Naga-Legaspi
line could not be true because there are 100 buses already plying
between the two points, at only seven (7)-minute intervals, both ways.

The credibility of witnesses in public service cases is not a
proper subject for review by the Supreme Court, otherwise, this review would be
converted into a trial de novo (Cebu
Autobus Co. vs. Bisaya Land Transportation, 66 Phil.
63; Santiago Ice Plant Co. vs. Lahoz, 87 Phil.
221).  The number of buses covering the
contested line and the frequency of their trips alone do not suffice to show
that no additional trips are required. 
Despite the number and frequency of trips, the possibility remains that
the public needs more, and the Commission has so found.  No abuse of discretion has been shown in
reaching such a con­clusion.

On the other assigned error, petitioners attack the financial
qualification of the applicant by mathematical computations, based on assumed
facts, as follows:  that besides the
initial payment of P10,530.00 on the chassis of four (4) auto-trucks, the
applicant must bear the cost of construction of their bodies and seats,
estimated at P16,000.00, and the registration fees for one semester, which
would be P1,200; so that before the respondent could put in operation the four
authorized units, he must, apart from cost of fuel, oil and wages, raise and
disburse the total sum of P27,730.00, an amount which respondent does not have.

Since the foregoing argument is mostly based on assumed
probabilities, which were not proven as facts, the same is untenable.  Thus, the argument takes for granted that
respondent (applicant below) had yet to buy four trucks, which is not even
true, as he already has three (Decision, page 2); it assumes also that the four
units have yet to be provided with bodies and seats and at a cost of P4,000.00
each, which was not proved.  It is not
likely that respondent would fall short in ready cash to start operation,
despite his small deposit in the bank and his lack of liquid assets that could
readily be converted into cash, for he already had three trucks; and on the
other hand, oppositors fail to allow for the earnings
of these vehicles of applicant.  While
the Commission was probably somewhat lenient in this regard, it is not for this
Court to substitute its own judgment and experience for that of the
Commission.  The finding of financial
capacity of the applicant is essentially one of fact, and upon the record, we
are not prepared to declare it patently unjustified (Panay
Autobus Co. vs. Iloilo Transportation Co., 60 Phil. 135; Del Pilar Transit vs. Silva, 15 July 1966, 17 SCRA 647; Sorita vs. PSC, L-20965, 29 October 1966, 18 SCRA 516;
Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Gabatin, et al.,
L-24472, 31 July 1968; Red Line Transportation vs. Santo Tomas, L-18584, 30
January 1967, 19 SCRA 148, and cases cited therein).

The case of A.L. Ammen Transportation
Co., et al. vs. Del Rosario, L-17992, 30 August 1963, wherein this Court
reversed the Commission’s finding on the financial means of the applicant, and
upon which the herein petitioners rely, differs in factual background from the
case at bar.  There, the applicant’s
resources were disputed, so that “the evidence submitted reasonably
satisfies us that the financial condition of the applicant renders it
impossible for him to run the public service he has been authorized to
establish and operate and thereafter maintain it efficiently and
successfully”.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS,
the decision on review is hereby affirmed, with costs against the
petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, and Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.