JAIME R. BLANCO, PETITIONER, VS. NELIA MANALO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for the review of the decision rendered by the
Public Service Commission in PSC’s Case No. 121628,
the dispositive part of which reads as fol­lows:

“In view of the foregoing, public necessity having been duly
proven and established, and that the grant of addi­tional units will promote
public welfare in a proper and suitable manner; that applicant-operators being
all financially capable and are
Filipino citizens, or corporations, 60% of the capital stock of which are owned
by Filipino citizens, let an authority be granted to the herein
applicant-operators authorizing them to operate additional taxicab units within
the City of Manila and its suburbs, and from any place in the said territory to
any other place in the Island of Luzon directly accessible to motor vehicle
traffic and vice-versa, with the follow­ing number of units specified after
their respective names:

With this decision, the total number of taxicab units actually
authorized in the City of Manila
and its Suburbs will be 2,815.

Cases Nos, 121754, 121185, 121334,
121548, 121873, 121186 and 109964, which are applica­tions filed by old taxicab
operators who now ceased to operate, having sold all their units, are hereby
ordered denied.  All the other ap­plications
filed in the above-entitled cases other than those granted additional units as
enumerated above are likewise ordered denied or dismissed, either for lack of
merit or for failure to appear and prosecute their respective applications.

The authority herein
granted shall be subject to the following:

C O N D I T IO N S :

1.  Applicants shall register with the Motor
Vehicles Office (Central Office), Quezon City, the
additional taxicab units hereinabove authorized within 30 days from the date
hereof, and submit to this Com­mission
certified copies of the certificates of registration of the said units issued
by the said Office within 10 days from date of such registration, otherwise this decision will be
cancelled and revoked.

The Chief, Motor Vehicles Office (Central Office) shall inspect the
units herein authorized, and shall accept them for registration only if found
fit for operation for public service.

2.  Applicants shall operate the addi­tional
taxicab units herein authorized strictly in accordance with the terms and
conditions prescribed in their respective certificates of public convenience.

Applicants, who are holders of more than one certificate of public
convenience, shall observe and comply with the terms and conditions of the
certificate the period of validity of which shall expire last.

This decision shall take effect immediately, and shall become final
thirty (30) days after notice to the parties.”

It appears that a total of 357 applications to operate taxicab units
were filed separately by individual applicants with the Public Service
Commission.  Fifty-nine (59) of them were
filed by taxicab operators in the City of Manila and suburbs for the grant of additional units, while the remain­ing two
hundred ninety-eight (298) were filed by non-operators praying that they be
authorized to operate the number of taxicab units applied for separately by
each and everyone of them, in the City of Manila and its suburbs and
vice-versa, and from any place within said territory to any other place in the
island of Luzon directly accessible to motor vehicle traffic.  Fifty-seven (57) applications were dismissed
for failure of the applicants to appear on the date of the hearing, while Cases
Nos. 121255, 121865 and 121328 had been previously dismissed upon petition of
the applicants themselves.  A few taxicab
operators, while not filing application for additional units, opposed all the
applications above referred to.

The City of Manila opposed all the applications, while the
taxicab operators who had filed applications for additional units also opposed
all the applications filed by the non-operators, their contention being that,
should the Commission find it necessary to authorize additional taxi­cab units,
all of them should be given to them as they were entitled to priority in
relation to the increase of their authorized units.

After proper notice by publication to all parties concerned, all
the applications were heard jointly upon agreement of the parties, and decision
was subsequently rendered in the manner set forth above.

Upon the evidence presented by the parties, the Commission found
that there existed public necessity for the operation of additional taxicab
units in the City of Manila and
suburbs, and/or vice-versa, and that all the applicants had the necessary
financial capacity to acquire and operate whatever number of units would be
awarded to each and everyone of them.  It found, however, that it was obviously unreasonable to
authorize the total of 14,995 units involved in the 357 applications filed with
it.  Therefore, on the basis of the
evidence of record, the Commission authorized only 330 additional taxicab
units.  Resolving the question of who
among the applicants should be the awardees in the allocation of these 330 taxicab
units, the Commission said:

“To whom this increase of 330 taxicab units should be granted
is a matter of serious deliberation considering that all of the appli­cants who
appeared have proven their respective financial capacity.  Unlike in the cases decided by the Commission
on February 4, 1949 where there were only 15 new applicants and the Com­mission
granted a total of 15 units to three (3) new applicants found to have had
special qualifications, there are in these cases 298 new applicants and 59 applicant-operators.  Considering the fact that the Commission de­cides
to grant only 330 additional units, it is therefore not possible to give to all
appli­cants as their number is even greater than the additional units hereby
authorized.  Besides, it is the policy of
this Commission that a taxicab operator should have at least the minimum of
five (5) units, consequently, it would not be possible to grant to any new
applicant and it would be unfair to grant to some of the new applicants and
deny to the others as they are all found under equal circumstances.  It is therefore the opinion of this
Commission that the best solution is to follow strictly the law and the
doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding
this matter.  In the case of Bohol Land Transportation Co. vs. Ju­reidini,
(53, Phil. 560) the Supreme Court ruled that “before granting a
certificate of public necessity and convenience to a trans­portation company or
common carrier on land, there being another with a proper certifi­cate, the
latter should be given an oppor­tunity to improve its service, if deficient or
inadequate”, and in the case of Yangco vs.
Esteban (58, Phil. 345), the Supreme Court laid down the following
doctrine:  “Where two operators are
more than serving the pub­lic there is no reason to permit a third operator to
engage in competition with them.  x x x x“.  Furthermore, the Supreme Court stated
“being old operators, unquestionably able and ready to increase their
units, the petitioners are entitled to protection and priority as against new
operators”.  (En­carnacion Elchico vda. de Fernando et. al.
vs. Gallardo, G. R. No. L-4860, September
5, 1953).

In view of the fact that applicant-operators who appeared are
willing and capable to increase their equipment, we believe that in justice to
them they should be entitled to
preference than the new applicants. 
The present appli­cant-operators
are entitled to be given every opportunity to improve their ser­vices as
they have not been making good business lately due to the recent increase in
the prices of cars, spare parts and fuel which prompted the Commission to grant
them an increase in fares in Case No. 128510 on October 4, 1960, in order to
allow them a fair and reasonable re­turn for their investments.  Another fac­tor considered by the Commission
in grant­ing the increased units
to applicant-operators only is the decision of the Commission to keep the
number of present oper­ators to its present
level.  The Commission has
experienced great difficulty in its supervision of TPU jitneys and auto-calesas in Manila
and suburbs due to the great num­ber of operators.  Considering the fact that the Commission has
actually only 92 transportation inspectors in the field distributed throughout
the country, we believe that with the maintenance of the present number or taxicab operators there will be no
additional burden in the exer­cise of its power of supervision.  The individual records of operation of these
applicant-operators were likewise consid­ered in the distribution of additional
units hereby authorized to them to the extent
that some operators received a lit­tle more than the others.  The additional taxicab units herein authorized are nevertheless
distributed to the applicant-operators as much as possible in propor­tion to
their present authorized units so that
some of them are granted only one ad­ditional unit.  These present operators likewise have a
marked advantage over the new applicants as they are more experi­enced in the
operation of the business, and that
they have the ready shops, me­chanics and necessary personnel to handle the same.”

For the reasons stated in the above-quoted portion of the appealed decision, the
Commission approved the applications of the taxicab operators and allocated
amongst them the 330 authorized additional taxicab units in the manner set
forth in the
dispositive portion of the appealed decision quoted
at the beginning hereof.

From said decision, Jaime
R. Blanco, petitioner herein, appealed by filing with this Court the
corresponding petition for review.  It
appears, however, that he failed to file his brief within the period granted to
him for the purpose.  The record also
shows that although the respondents were required to file their brief within 30
days from notice, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Court on
the matter, no brief was filed by them. 
The instant appeal, however, may be decided on the basis of the
following issues raised by petitioner in his petition for review:

“The issues in this petition, for review are purely questions
of law which were squarely raised before PSC, as follows:

I.     That,
notwithstanding the uncontra­dicted proven fact that
all existing taxicab operators, respondents herein, except La Mallorca, had sold and/or assigned their franchises in
whole and in part, PSC erred in not holding that said existing taxicab
operators, except La Mallorca, are estopped to claim, and/or have waived their right to,
and/or have lost their right to, preference to the 330 additional taxicab units granted in PSC’s Decision of May 15, 1951.

II.    That, notwithstanding the uncontra­dicted proven fact that all existing taxicab
operators, respondents herein, had violated PSC’s
rules and regulations, PSC erred in not holding that said existing taxicab
operators had no right to preference to the 330 addi­tional taxicab units
granted in PSC’s Deci­sion of May 15, 1961.

III.   That PSC erred in relying on the outdated
factor of fair and reasonable re­turn to investment in granting preference over the said 330 additional taxicab
units to existing taxicab operators, respondents herein.

IV.   PSC violated petitioner’s right to due
process when it granted 48 of said 330 additional taxicab units to nine (9)
unlisted taxicab operators, nine (9) of respondents herein.

V.   Since hearings before PSC are re­corded, PSC
erred in refusing to disturb its Decision of May 15, 1951 just because the PSC commissioners at
reconsideration did not hear the recorded evidence presented to their
predecessors.

VI.   Since immediate effectivity
of PSC’s decisions are by law not stayed by
reconsidera­tion motions or appeal, PSC erred in refusing to disturb its
Decision of May 15, 1961 just because the grantees therein had already invested
for the units granted therein.

VII.  PSC erred in not granting petitioner the
franchise and units applied for.”

The first and second issues
are here considered jointly.

It is petitioner’s contention that, as the taxicab
operators-applicants had sold and/or assigned their fran­chises, in whole or in
part, and had violated the Commis­sion’s rules and regulations, the Commission
should have held that they were estopped to claim,
and/or that they had waived their right to, and/or that they had lost their
right to preference in the allocation of the 330 additional taxicab units
authorized in the decision appealed from.

On the above issues the Commission ruled that the taxicab
operators-applicants had the right – subject to the Commission’s approval – to
sell, in whole or in part, their respective franchises or certificates of
public convenience which were just like any other ordinary property.  While, apparently, the Commission believed
petitioners claim that some of the taxicab operators-applicants had sold some
of their taxicab units, it held nevertheless that there was no sufficient
evidence to show that these sales constituted what the Commission called
“trafficking.” By this term, the Commission most probably had in mind
the case of parties who apply for and are authorized to operate taxicab units,
not to render service to the public but to engage in speculation by thereafter
selling said units and there­after ask for authority to operate additional
ones.  We agree with the Commission that
the record does not show that anyone of the taxicab operators-applicants had
been guilty of this practice.

Petitioner next contends that the Commission erred in relying on
the outdated factor of fair and reasonable re­turn in granting preference to
the taxicab operators-applicants in the allocation of the 330 additional
taxicab units authorized in the appealed decision, invoking, in this
connection, our decision in Manila Yellow Taxicab vs. Public Service Commission
(G.R. L-2875, October 31, 1951).

We find no merit in this contention.  The appealed decision shows that the
Commission found that the taxicab operators-applicants “had not been
making good business lately due to the recent increase in the prices of cars,
spare parts and fuel which prompted the Commission to grant them an increase in
fares.” This makes the appealed decision fall within the ruling in the Manila
Yellow Taxicab case to the effect that no preference should be granted
to present and actual taxicab operators in the allocation of additional
authorized units in the absence of evidence of the resultant loss to them
should a new applicant be granted the franchise applied for or a por­tion of
the aforesaid additional units.

Moreover, as additional reason in support of its decision, the
Commission said that it had adopted the policy “to keep the number of
present operators to its present level,” because the Commission had
experienced great difficulty in its supervision of the public vehicles operating in Manila and suburbs
with only its 92 transportation inspectors in the field distributed throughout
the country.  In the circumstances of the
case, We cannot say that this was a wrong policy.

The next issue raised by petitioner is that the Commission
violated its right to due process by granting 48 of the authorized 330
additional taxicab units to nine (9) unlisted taxicab operators.

We consider this issue as of little consequence in view of the
ruling of the Commission – with which We agree
– allocating the additional
units authorized in its decision among actual taxicab operators, it
being a fact that petitioner is not one of them.  If any party is en­titled to assail the award
to the alleged unlisted opera­tors, it is all or one of the
operators-applicants.

As regards the
last three issues raised in the petition for review, We
are of the opinion that they are not – whether singly nor collectively – sufficient
ground upon which to reverse the decision appealed from.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from
is affirmed.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor,
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

 Barredo, J., did not take part.