PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. SIMPLICIO DE LA CRUZ, RESPONDENT.

The respondent Simplicio de la Cruz is an operator of a TPU
auto-truck service between Urdaneta (Pangasinan) and Manila, Urdaneta
and Baguio, and Urdaneta and Dagupan -under a certificate of public
convenience granted by the Public Service Commission. Desiring to
expand his operation, he has applied for authority to opera the same
kind of service between Urdaneta and Dagupan via Manaoag, between
Urdaneta and San Fernando (La Union), and between Urdaneta and San Jose
(Nueva Ecija), using a total of fourteen units for that purpose.
Notwithstanding the opposition of the PANTRANCO (Pangasinan
Transportation Co., Inc.) and two other operators in that region, the
Commission granted the application, but reducing the units to be used
to two auto-trucks on the line Urdaneta-San Fernando, two auto-trucks
on the line Urdaneta-San Jose, and one auto-truck on the line
Urdaneta-Dagupan via Manaoag, or a total of five auto-trucks for the
three lines.

From this decision, only the oppositor PANTRANCO has appealed
through this petition for review, and the only questions raised are
whether applicant is financially in a position to undertake the
additional service applied for and whether there is still need for such
additional service.

As to his finances, the applicant testified that, aside from his
farm, he had an annual income of P5,000 from his business and he also
had P10,000 invested in gasoline which he could readily convert into
cash, PANTRANCO argues that P15,000 “is not enough to finance the
fourteen units he intends to utilize.” But it should be noted that,
although applicant has asked for fourteen units, the Commission has
authorized him only five, and according to applicant’s testimony, he
has already purchased two CHEVROLET trucks from one Bundalan
(registration of which is awaiting the result of the present case) and
one new CHEVROLET from Liddel & Co., having, in addition, concluded
an agreement for the acquisition of ten more trucks from another bus
operator, his uncle Maximo L. Cruz, who is losing in his business. With
this unrebutted testimony, we cannot say that the Commission has erred
in holding that the applicant is financially capable of maintaining and
operating the proposed service.

On the question of public convenience or the need for the additional
service applied for, only the applicant and the oppositor PANTRANCO
have adduced evidence, which the Commission has summarized as follows:

“At the hearing of this application, applicant
presented evidence to the effect that he is already the grantee of a
certificate of public convenience valid for 25 years (Case No. 46714)
which authorizes the operation of TPU auto-truck services on the lines
Urdaneta- Dagupan, Urdaneta-Manila and Urdaneta-Baguio City with an
authorized equipment of four (4) auto-trucks and one reserve unit; that
on the lines applied for in this case traffic is heavy as shown in the
photographs of passenger trucks (Exhibits ‘D’, ‘D-1’ to ‘D-5’); that
the needs of the traveling public cannot be adequately served by the
present TPU truck operators on the said lines; that in order to cope
with the demands of the traveling public, applicant proposes to operate
eight (8) auto-trucks on the line Urdaneta (Pangasinan)-San Fernando
(La Union), 2 auto-trucks on the line Urdaneta-San Jose; that San
Fernando (La Union), one of the towns to which applicant desires to
operate from Urdaneta, is an air and naval base where many laborers and
employees work; that the oppositor Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc.
has only direct local service between Urdaneta and Manaoag and
passengers at Manaoag desiring to go to Dagupan have to wait for
oppositor’s buses coming from Binalonan and Pozorrubio; that passengers
coming from Nueva Ecija and the Cagayan Valley bound for Urdaneta,
Dagupan or other points in Pangasinan have to take TPU trucks at San
Jose as they cannot be accommodated in the authorized TPU trucks which
are always overloaded with passengers and freight; and that the
services at present being rendered by the present TPU operators on the
lines in question are entirely insufficient. For the services proposed
in this case applicant stated that he will use three (3) CHEVROLET
auto-trucks he has already purchased, the reserve unit authorized in
his present TPU auto-truck operation and another the (10) units he will
acquire from an uncle of his who presently operates them in the
province of Pampanga.

“Among the oppositors the Pangasinan
Transportation Co., Inc., was the only one who presented evidence in
support of its opposition. This oppositor presented witnesses who
testified that they can avail themselves of the buses of the said
oppositor in the lines herein applied for whenever they travel therein;
and that buses of said operator as well as other TPU operators are in
fact already more than sufficient for the needs of the traveling
public.”

As we see it, despite conflict in the testimony, there is evidence
reasonably to support the finding below that on the lines applied for
“there is really need for the additional services to adequately serve
the traveling public.” And it also appears that in arriving at this
conclusion, the Commission took into account its own record ” on TPU auto-truck services already authorized” on those lines. In the
circumstances, this Court would not be justified in substituting its
own judgment for that of the Commission, just because the witnesses for
the PANTRANCO have testified that the service being rendered by this
oppositor and the other operators in that region is already adequate
for present needs. It has been held time and again that where the
Commission has reached a conclusion of fact after weighing the
conflicting evidence, that conclusion must be respected, and this Court
will not interfere unless it clearly appears that there is no evidence
to support the decision of the Commission. (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol.
I, 1953 ed., pp. 933-934 and cases therein cited.)

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Public Service Commission is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.