GAVINO T. VAGILIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL M. MAS AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Vagilidad versus Mas

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Gavino T. Vagilidad against Manuel M. Mas and the Public Service Commission, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the orders of the Commission that found him guilty of violating his certificates of public convenience, fined him a total of 450 pesos, and declared that the Sibalom to San Jose route via Barrio Odiong in Antique was not covered by any certificate issued in his favor. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the deference the Supreme Court pays to the factual findings of the Public Service Commission, and of the rule that a certificate of public convenience is a bounded privilege: an operator who runs outside his authorized line violates that certificate, whatever his motives of public convenience may be.

Procedural History

Manuel M. Mas filed a sworn complaint before the Public Service Commission, which set the case for hearing. Only the complainant appeared, so the Commission declared Vagilidad in default and received the complainant's testimony ex parte, with Inspector Fidencio Perlas also testifying against him. Vagilidad moved to lift the order of default and to cross-examine the witnesses, and the Commission granted the motion and reset the case for hearing. The Commission then issued its order of September 15, 1967, finding Vagilidad guilty of violating his certificates and imposing the fines. Vagilidad moved for reconsideration, which the Commission denied in its order of April 22, 1968. Vagilidad then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Vagilidad held certificates of public convenience for certain routes. One certificate authorized a line from Sibalom to Iloilo City via Egaña, a distance of 101 kilometers. Another authorized a loop service from San Remigio via Sibalom, Barrio Egaña, Malandog, San Jose and San Pedro, a distance of 52 kilometers. Neither certificate covered the Sibalom to San Jose route via Barrio Odiong, a route of only about 10 kilometers, which was covered instead by a certificate granted to Manuel M. Mas.

On August 5, 1966, Mas filed a sworn complaint alleging that four jeepneys registered under Vagilidad's certificates were operated under the kabit system, and that these jeepneys were illegally operating on the Sibalom to San Jose route via Odiong, a route not covered by any of Vagilidad's certificates. The Commission directed Inspector Fidencio Perlas to investigate. In his report of August 24, 1966, the inspector stated that three jeepneys were apprehended at the checkpoint of the Sibalom to San Jose via Odiong route for operating outside the authorized line, with additional violations of overloading, trip-cutting, and habitual violation. He noted that Vagilidad was not an authorized operator on that route, and that in both certificates the abandonment of the authorized line was almost nine tenths of the line, to the prejudice of the riding public.

The Commission found Vagilidad guilty of violating his certificates and imposed fines of 100 pesos, 150 pesos, and 200 pesos for the three vehicles, totaling 450 pesos, with a warning that failure to comply strictly with the terms of his certificates would be a ground for cancellation. On reconsideration, the Commission denied the motion and expressly declared that the Sibalom to San Jose via Odiong road was not covered by any certificate issued in Vagilidad's favor.

Issues

• Whether or not the orders of the Public Service Commission violated the rule that in the operation of a transportation business, public convenience and comfort should be the primary consideration.
• Whether or not the said orders violated the principle that in a transportation business, the prior operator should be given protection.
• Whether or not the said orders in effect sanctioned a monopoly in favor of Manuel M. Mas.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the settled rule on the scope of review of the Commission's factual findings, which the Court states in its own words:

Where the petition for review disputes merely the sufficiency of the evidence, the finding cannot be disturbed.

This rule bears directly on the case because every issue raised by Vagilidad called for a re-examination of the evidence considered by the Commission.

The Court also states the companion rule:

It is not for this Court to determine credibility and preponderance of proof nor to examine the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies the decision.

This forecloses the petition, since the petitioner was asking the Court to weigh the very evidence the Commission had already assessed.

Ruling

The Court held that the issues raised were factual in character and called for a review of the evidence considered by the Commission. On the first issue, the claim that public convenience and comfort should be the primary consideration did not help the petitioner, because the Commission had found as a fact that he was operating outside his authorized line, and that finding could not be disturbed. On the second issue, the claim of protection for the prior operator likewise rested on factual premises that the Court would not re-examine. On the third issue, the claim that the orders sanctioned a monopoly in favor of Mas was rejected for the same reason: it asked the Court to substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on questions of fact.

The Court stressed that the lack of wisdom of the conclusion reached by the Commission affects neither its authority to decide nor the validity of its decision. It also noted, in passing, that the Public Service Commission had been abolished and replaced by later agencies, but this did not affect the outcome.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, where a petition for review disputes merely the sufficiency of the evidence, the finding of the Public Service Commission cannot be disturbed. Second, the Supreme Court will not determine credibility and preponderance of proof, nor examine the proof de novo, nor substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on questions of fact. Third, the lack of wisdom of the Commission's conclusion affects neither its authority to decide nor the validity of its decision. Fourth, a certificate of public convenience authorizes only the route it specifies; operating outside the authorized line is a violation of the certificate and a ground for fine and, ultimately, cancellation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner, thereby affirming the orders of the Public Service Commission.

Remember This

Memorize the line: where the petition for review disputes merely the sufficiency of the evidence, the finding cannot be disturbed. Examiners use this case to test the limits of judicial review over the factual findings of administrative bodies such as the Public Service Commission, and to test whether a certificate of public convenience may be used outside its authorized route.