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

On account of the loss of petitioner’s Exhibits D, D-1, D-1-a,
D-1-b, D-1-c, D-1-d, while in the possession of the Public Serivce
Commission, to which they had been previously submitted, and in view of
the impossibility of reconstituting the same, as reported by the
Commissioner of this Court, the petitioner-appellant, La Mallorca and
Pampanga Bus Co., has moved for the setting aside of the decision under
appeal, and a remand of the records to the Public Service Commission
for a new trial. Respondent-appellee, Cirilo D. Mendiola, registered
his opposition.

Considering that the lost exhibits appear to be observation reports
of motor vehicles for hire, operating at specific times on the
Guagua-San Fernando line, showing their plate number, passenger load,
and direction taken by them, as observed by appellant’s witness,
Pineda, and submitted to the Commission to rebut applicant-respondent’s
own evidence;

Considering that there is no proof that the lost exhibits were not
duly considered and taken into account by the Public Service Commission
when it rendered its decision, now under appeal, where said Commission
has held that—

“From the mass of evidence, we find the following
facts established:—that there is the operation of ten jitneys and six
buses on the proposed line; that there are daily commuters on this
line; that the present number of vehicles operating on this line is not sufficient to cope with the number of passengers on this line; and that applicant is financially capable to operate and maintain the service herein applied for.” (Italics supplied).

Considering the established rule that in cases of this nature the
Supreme Court is not authorized to weight the conflicting evidence and
substitute its own conclusions thereon for those of the Public Service
Commission (Halili, et al., vs. Isip, L-1458, 28 Jan. 1950; Ice & Cold Storage Industries vs.
Valero, 85 Phil. 7, and cases cited therein), the sole mission of this
Court being to ascertain whether “it clearly appears that there was
evidence before the Commission to reasonably support” the decision, a
pronouncement that primarily depends on the character of the
applicant’s evidence, which has not been lost;

The Court resolves to DENY the petitioner’s motion to set aside and
remand, and to require the petitioner to file its brief within thirty
(30) days from receipt of this resolution. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.