G. R. No. L-21547. July 15, 1966
DEL PILAR TRANSIT, INC. PETITIONER, VS. JOSE M. SILVA, RODOLFO M, SILVA AND PUBLIC. SERVICE. COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
applications for a certificate of public convenience before the Public
Service Commission, thus:
- Jose Silva, for additional auto-trucks for the transportation of passengers and freight on the following lines:
Cupang
(Muntinglupa, Rizal) – BBB via Alabang, Superhighway, Highway 54 (E. de
los Santos Avenue), Baclaran Rotonda, Harrison, A. Mabini,,Taft Avenue,
Sta. Cruz Bridge, Rizal Avenue and vice versa.
Cupang (Muntinglupa, Rizal) – BBB via Alabang, Superhighway, Highway 54
(E. de los Santos Avenue), Taft Avenue, Sta. Cruz Bridge, Rizal
Avenue,and vice versa.
A total of 20 units or 10 units each route would be used daily from
3:00 A.M. to 12 midnight with Intervals of 15 minutes per trip both
ways. - Rodolfo Sllva, for the operation of public utility auto-trucks on the following lines:
Cupang (Muntinglupa, Rizal) – BBB via Alabang,
Superhighway, Highway 54, (E. de los Santos Avenue) Taft. Avenue, Sta.
Cruz Bridge, Rizal Avenue and vice versa.
Cupang (Huntinglupa, Rizal) – BBB via Alabang, Superhighway, Highway 54
(E.. De los Santos Avenue), Baclaran Rotonda, Harrison, A. Mabini, Taft
Avenue, Sta. Cruz Bridge, Rizal Avenue, and vice versa.
A total of 20 units or 10 units each route would operate from 3:00 A.M.
to 12 midnight daily at 15-minute intervals both - Jaguar Transportation, along the lines:
Alabang-Zurbaran via Parañaque, Quirino Avenue, Harrison,
Ayala, Azcarraga, Morayta, España and Quezon Boulevard.
Alabang-Plaza Miranda, via Zapote, Parañaque, Quirino Avenue, Taft
Avenue, Ayala, Azcarragaj, Morayta, EspaHa and Quezon Boulevard .
Applicant proposed the use of 10 units for each line.
The
applications were opposed by Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., Batangas
Transportation Co., Del Pllar Transit, Inc., Halili Transit, California
Lines, Inc., Armando Alviar and MD Transit and Taxi Co., Inc., and
Antonio Heras.
By agreement of the parties, the cases were Jointly tried considering that the lines applied for were more or less tangent.
After
due hearing the Public Service Commission rendered its decision on
March 19, 1963, finding the applicants financially sound, declaring
that public convenience will be promoted In a proper and suitable
manner by approving the application, thus: It thereunder granted
separate franchises to applicants Jose Silva, Rodolfo Silva and Jaguar
Transportation, giving each of them the privilege to operate eight
auto-trucks along each of their respective proposed lines or a total of
16 autotrucks for each applicant.
From this decision of the
Public Service Commission, Del Pilar Transit, Inc., appealed by filing
this petition for review, questioning the Commission’s finding of
applicants’ financial capacity arid public necessity for the grant,
with respect only to the applications of Jose and Rodolfo Silva.
Jose
Silva testified that he has already 10 units in reserve which he will
use in case his application is granted (T.s.n., p. 7, Rayo, Jan. 10,
1963) and his assets and liabilities are shown to be as follows
(Ibid.):
Assets: 91 units at P21,000 each Garage and shop – P1,911,000 Coconut land (69 has. at P5,000 a ha.) – 345,000 Land in Vito Cruz, 505 sq. m. at P70 a sq. m. – 35,350 – P2,291,750 Liabilities: Balance of P36,000 encumbrance on house – P21,000 Encumbrance on coconut land – 161,000 Obligation to Shell – 390,000 Obligation to Goodrich Tires – 80,000 Obligation to Manila Trading Corp. – 200,000 Obligation to Industrial Financing Corp. – 20,000 – P872,000
Jose Silva has therefore net
assets of P1,419,750, showing that he Is financially able to engage in
the proposed operations. All the more is this so when the fact is
considered that he is merely asking for additional lines.
As to Rodolfo Silva, the Public Service Commission found,
and the record substantially bears the finding, that he owns 48
hectares of first class agricultural land planted to osoonuta, valued
at P240,000; an electric plant in Mataas na Kahoy worth P25,000; a
citrus plantation worth P36,000; a house and lot worth P60,000 and
personal properties worth P12,000; and that oppositors had not
successfully questioned his financial capacity. The record shows that
his liabilities total only about P28,000 (T.s.n., pp. 12-14, Jan. 14,
1963) as against his total assets of P373,000, leaving net assetscf
around P345,000.
In an appeal from a decision of the Public
Service Commission, the rule as to factual findings is that this Court
should determine only whether the evidence on record substantially
supports said findings of the Commission, without examining1proof de novo to find whether they are supported by preponderant evidence.[1]
The
foregoing unrebutted testimonies of the applicants prove their required
financial capacity. It may not be the best evidence and documentary
evidence may have greater probative value. It should not be forgotten,
however, that the Public Service Commission is not bound by strict
rules of evidence.[2] For
purposes of this appeal, what is decisive is that the aforestated
testimonial evidence provides reasonable support for the Public Service
Commission’s findings of financial capacity on the part of Jose and
Rodolfo Silva, rendering such findings beyond our power to disturb.
The same principle applies as to the issue of public necessity and
convenience. We have consistently ruled that findings of the Public
Service Commission as to public necessity and convenience are findings
of fact which should not be Interfered with where some evidence
reasonably supports such findings. Only when it clearly appears that
there is no evidence to reasonably support such findings[3] may they be modified or ignored.[4]
In declaring the necessity of the additional lines granted, the Public
Service Commission relied on the testimonies of Virgilio Celis, a PSC
transportation Inspector assigned by the Commission (Exh. C), and
Neptalio Araoranto, a merchant who has travelled the routes applied
for. Cells, the Commission pointed out, testified that buses coming
from Laguna and Batangas are full and could no longer accommodate those
waiting at Alabang during the mornings and afternoons; that Del Pilar
Transit, Inc. operates from downtown Manila to Alabang, but their trips
are very irregular and sometimes they do not make trips at all. The
Commission also found that there is yet no direct service along thsse
lines but merely on different portions of the line. All these are found
in the records (Exh. D; pp. 7-10, 22 of T.s.n., Jan. 3, 1963).
Neptalio Amoranto testified that to buy fish from Cupang to take to
Blumentritt he has to take private jeeps or two rides in buses which is
inconvenient, for passengers cannot take LTB buses or the San Pedro or
Batangas Transportation buses because these”are already full when they
pass.
We find that there are of record enough evidence to
warrant the conclusion that there exists a public necessity for the
additional lines granted. The allegation that Cells was authorized only
to make apprehensions for violations of Public Service Laws is not
tenable, for his order was to make “roving Inspection and investigation
and/or check volume of passengers and operations of pu~ bile utility
buses and Jeeps” (Exh. C).
The petitioner also argues that
the main reason for the grant Is the ban of provincial buses from
Manila which ban has not been in effect. The decision shows, however,
that the ban was considered In reference to the oppositions of Laguna
Tayabas Bus Co. and Batangas Transportation Co. Said companies did not
appeal. And Del Filar Transit, Inc.’s opposition was denied without
regard to the provincial bus ban.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Public Service Commission appealed from is affirmed In all respects, with
SO ORDERED,
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
[1] Ramos vs. Lat, L-14476 & L-15773, May 23, 1960; Pineda vs. Carandang, L-13270-71, March 24, 1960; Bachrach Motor Co. vs. Guico, L-12619-20, Aug. 28, 1959.
[2] Redi Taxi, Inc. vs. Santos, L-12264-66, May 29, 1959.
[3] West Leyte Trans. Co. vs. Salazar, L-15418, Sept. 30, 1964; Flash Taxicab Co. vs. Cruz, L-15464 & L-16255, March 30, 1963; MD Transit vs. Pepito, L-16481, Sept. 29, 1962; General Bus Corp. vs. Cunanan, L-15347, April 29, 1961; Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab Co., Inc. vs. Castelo, L-13910, May 30, 1960.
[4] Halili vs. Daplas, L-20282, May 19, 1965.