DEL PILAR TRANSIT, INC. PETITIONER, VS. JOSE M. SILVA, RODOLFO M, SILVA AND PUBLIC. SERVICE. COMMISSIONER, RESPONDENTS.

Del Pilar Transit versus Silva

The Case

This is a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court by Del Pilar Transit, Inc. against Jose Silva, Rodolfo Silva, and the Public Service Commissioner. Del Pilar Transit asks the Court to reverse the decision of the Public Service Commission granting separate certificates of public convenience to Jose Silva and Rodolfo Silva for the operation of additional auto-truck lines. The case matters because it fixes the standard of review that the Supreme Court applies to factual findings of the Public Service Commission, particularly on financial capacity and on public necessity and convenience. It is a classic administrative law and public utilities case, and it teaches the bar candidate how far a reviewing court may go in disturbing the Commission's findings.

Procedural History

Jose Silva, Rodolfo Silva, and Jaguar Transportation each filed applications for a certificate of public convenience before the Public Service Commission. Several existing operators, including Del Pilar Transit, Inc., opposed the applications. By agreement of the parties, the cases were jointly tried because 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 and declaring that public convenience would be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by approving the applications. It granted separate franchises to Jose Silva, Rodolfo Silva, and Jaguar Transportation, giving each the privilege to operate eight auto-trucks along each of their respective proposed lines, or a total of sixteen auto-trucks for each applicant. From this decision, Del Pilar Transit, Inc. appealed by filing a petition for review before the Supreme Court, questioning the Commission's findings of financial capacity and public necessity, but only with respect to the applications of Jose and Rodolfo Silva.

Facts

As of December 11, 1962, Jose Silva, Rodolfo Silva, and Jaguar Transportation filed applications for certificates of public convenience before the Public Service Commission. Jose Silva sought additional auto-trucks for the transportation of passengers and freight on two lines running between Cupang in Muntinglupa, Rizal, and BBB, passing through Alabang, the Superhighway, Highway 54 or E. de los Santos Avenue, and various Manila streets. Rodolfo Silva sought the operation of public utility auto-trucks on substantially the same lines. Jaguar Transportation sought lines running from Alabang to Zurbaran and from Alabang to Plaza Miranda. The applications were opposed by Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Batangas Transportation Company, Del Pilar Transit, Inc., Halili Transit, California Lines, Inc., Armando Alviar, MD Transit and Taxi Company, Inc., and Antonio Heras.

After a joint trial, the Public Service Commission rendered its decision on March 19, 1963, finding the applicants financially sound and granting each of them a franchise to operate eight auto-trucks along each of their respective proposed lines, or sixteen units each. On the financial capacity of Jose Silva, the record showed that he already had ten units in reserve which he would use if his application were granted. His assets totaled two million two hundred ninety-one thousand seven hundred fifty pesos, while his liabilities totaled eight hundred seventy-two thousand pesos, leaving him net assets of one million four hundred nineteen thousand seven hundred fifty pesos. The Commission noted that he was merely asking for additional lines.

As to Rodolfo Silva, the Commission found that he owned forty-eight hectares of first class agricultural land planted to osoonuta, valued at two hundred forty thousand pesos, an electric plant in Mataas na Kahoy worth twenty-five thousand pesos, a citrus plantation worth thirty-six thousand pesos, a house and lot worth sixty thousand pesos, and personal properties worth twelve thousand pesos. His liabilities totaled only about twenty-eight thousand pesos against total assets of three hundred seventy-three thousand pesos, leaving net assets of around three hundred forty-five thousand pesos. On public necessity, the Commission relied on the testimony of Virgilio Celis, a transportation inspector assigned by the Commission, and of Neptalio Amoranto, a merchant who had travelled the routes applied for. Celis testified that buses coming from Laguna and Batangas were full and could no longer accommodate those waiting at Alabang during the mornings and afternoons, and that Del Pilar Transit, Inc. operated from downtown Manila to Alabang but its trips were very irregular and sometimes it did not make trips at all. Amoranto testified that to buy fish from Cupang and take it to Blumentritt, he had to take private jeeps or two rides in buses, which was inconvenient because the Laguna Tayabas and Batangas buses were already full when they passed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Public Service Commission's findings of financial capacity on the part of Jose and Rodolfo Silva are supported by substantial evidence and should be sustained on appeal.
• Whether or not the Public Service Commission's findings of public necessity and convenience for the additional lines granted are supported by evidence reasonably sufficient to sustain them.
• Whether or not the testimony of the Commission's transportation inspector may be relied upon, given the claim that he was authorized only to make apprehensions for violations of public service laws.
• Whether or not the grant was improperly based on the ban of provincial buses from Manila.

Applicable Provisions

No statutory provision is quoted verbatim in the decision. The case turns on the settled rule of review of the factual findings of the Public Service Commission, which the Court states as follows:

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 examining proof de novo to find whether they are supported by preponderant evidence.

This rule governs the whole appeal, because the petitioner attacks only the Commission's findings of fact on financial capacity and public necessity.

The Court also relies on the rule that the Commission is not bound by strict rules of evidence, which it states as follows:

It should not be forgotten, however, that the Public Service Commission is not bound by strict rules of evidence.

This rule disposes of the objection that the applicants' evidence was merely testimonial and not documentary.

Finally, on public necessity and convenience, the Court states the rule as follows:

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.

This rule controls the second issue and explains why the Court declined to substitute its own judgment for that of the Commission.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the unrebutted testimonies of the applicants proved their required financial capacity. The Court acknowledged that the evidence may not be the best evidence and that documentary evidence may have greater probative value, but it stressed that the Public Service Commission is not bound by strict rules of evidence. What was decisive for the appeal was that the testimonial evidence provided reasonable support for the Commission's findings of financial capacity on the part of Jose and Rodolfo Silva, rendering such findings beyond the Court's power to disturb.

On the second issue, the Court applied the same principle. It held 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 them, and that only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to reasonably support such findings may they be modified or ignored. The Court found enough evidence on record to warrant the conclusion that a public necessity existed for the additional lines granted, based on the testimonies of the transportation inspector and the merchant.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the argument that the inspector's testimony should be disregarded because he was authorized only to make apprehensions for violations of public service laws. The Court held that the allegation was not tenable, for his order was to make roving inspection and investigation and to check the volume of passengers and operations of public utility buses and jeeps.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petitioner's argument that the main reason for the grant was the ban of provincial buses from Manila, which ban was not in effect, was without merit. The decision showed that the ban was considered only in reference to the oppositions of Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and Batangas Transportation Company, and those companies did not appeal. The opposition of Del Pilar Transit, Inc. was denied without regard to the provincial bus ban.

Doctrine

First, in an appeal from a decision of the Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court determines only whether the evidence on record substantially supports the findings of the Commission, without examining the proof de novo to find whether they are supported by preponderant evidence. Second, 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 them, and may be modified or ignored only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to reasonably support them. Third, the Public Service Commission is not bound by strict rules of evidence, so testimonial evidence may suffice to support a finding of financial capacity even if documentary evidence might have greater probative value. These rules are tied to the quoted standards of review, and a bar candidate should state them as the limits on judicial interference with the factual findings of administrative bodies.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects the decision of the Public Service Commission appealed from, so Del Pilar Transit, Inc. lost and the franchises granted to Jose Silva and Rodolfo Silva stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that findings of the Public Service Commission on financial capacity and on public necessity and convenience are findings of fact that the Supreme Court will not disturb where some evidence reasonably supports them. Examiners like to use this case in administrative law and public utilities questions on the scope of judicial review of the factual findings of administrative agencies, and on the rule that the Commission is not bound by strict rules of evidence.