PEDRO VIDAL AND DAVID BAETIONG, PETITIONERS, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

Pedro Vidal executed on May 16,
1961 a deed of sale in favor of David Baetiong, purporting to sell and
trans­fer a certificate of public convenience, allegedly granted to Vidal by
the Public Service Commission in its Case No. 63708, and several jeepneys for P7,000.00.  An application was thereafter filed, on June 2, 1961, by both Pedro Vidal and David Baetiong in the Public
Service Commission for the approval of the aforesaid sale and transfer of the
cer­tificate of public convenience (PSC Case No. 61-4668).

The Public Service Commission through Associate Com­missioner
Antonio Aspillera, issued an order on June 6, 1961, provisionally approving, for the duration of said
application’s pendency, the sale and transfer aforementioned, subject to
revocation or modification at any time.

After hearing, on November 29,
1961, the Public Ser­vice
Commission dismissed the application and set aside the provisional approval, on
the ground that neither the statistics records nor the records of the
Transportation Division show that the certificate of public convenience was
issued to Vidal in PSC Case No. 63708.  The plates of the five Jeepneys also
covered by the sale, were
ordered immediately confiscated.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by applicants on December 13, 1961 praying for a formal inquiry on the matter and asking that
there be no immediate confiscation until the persons responsible for the fraud
are known.  An amended and supplemental
motion was filed on February 8, 1963,
to set aside the order of November 29, 1961, for immediate return of the confiscated
plates and for new hearing to allow the presentation of some documents al­legedly
discovered evidencing the existence of the certi­ficate issued in Case No.
63708.

Said alleged documents were: (1) A certified true copy of the decision of the Public Service
Commission in Case No. 63708 penned by Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo dated
December 12, 1955, granting the
certificate in Vi­dal’s favor; (2) a certified true copy of
an order dated May 29, 1961 issued by Commissioner Aspillera allowing the substitution
of 5 jitneys in Case No. 61-3897
for the 5 jitneys in Case No.
63708; (3) a certification stating that the orders in Vidal’s
favor in Cases Nos. 61-3897 and 61-4068
have been recorded in the statistics section of the Public Service
Commission.

The Public Service Commission en banc denied on
March 30, 1965 the motion for reconsideration.

This petition for review was then filed here on July 7, 1965.  It vas dismissed on October 19, 1965 for failure
to file petitioners’ brief, but subsequently, We allowed petitioners further
time to file their brief, and the same was filed.

At issue is whether respondent Commission should have ruled on
the basis of the newly-offered documents that a certificate was in fact issued
in Vidal’s favor in Case No. 63708.

The Public Service Commission en banc held that not­withstanding
diligent search no record of a certificate of public convenience awarded to Pedro Vidal in
Case No. 63708 could be found.  Not even
its docket, which indicates the proceedings held, reflects it.  And no statistical record thereof appears nor
was a time schedule prepared and approved for said franchise.  These facts were sworn to by the respective
personnel in charge.

As against this state of the record attested to by their
custodians, petitioners would rely on a certified true copy of an alleged
“decision” in Case No. 63708 grant­ing a franchise in favor of
Vidal.  Such certified true copy cannot
prevail over the records of the Public Service Commission unless it is shown that the latter’s records are
defective or incomplete, which is not the case. 
The fact that plainly arises is that the so-called certified true copy was fraudulently made; that there was
in fact no such decision; and, indeed, applicants have not presented or offered
to present anything convincing to the effect that there was really a decision
promulgated in Case No. 63708 granting Vidal a franchise.  It cannot be deemed an error on the part of
respondent Commission not to rely on a mere certified true copy of an alleged decision,
in the absence of anything in their records to show that there was such a
decision and in the absence of competent proof that such decision was actually
rendered.  Respondent Com­mission, therefore,
did not err in denying new trial for the presentation of said certified
true copy.

Regarding the provisional approval of the sale and transfer, the
same, by its
terms, could be revoked at any time and was intended to last only during
the pendency of the application.  So the
fact of its grant and recording does not affect the issue of whether a
certificate of pu­blic convenience was really given in favor of Vidal.  And, moreover, even in this, it was found that the same*
was granted due to forgeries in the initials of the personnel who recommend
action thereon.  The same, therefore,
were properly revoked.

As to the alleged injustice to the buyer, the vendee may proceed against
his vendor for recovery, and the lat­ter, may go against the persons responsible for
the fraud.  The point involved in the
present suit is
simply that there is no record of a certificate of public convenience
granted to
Vidal in Case No. 63708 and that, therefore, the sale thereof to
Baetiong cannot be approved and the vehicles in­cluded in the sale cannot
be allowed to operate under the non-existing franchise.

WHEREFORE, the appealed orders are hereby affirmed, with
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Ruiz Castro, J., did not take
part.

*
As well as the order of May 29, 1961 on substitution of jeepneys.