G.R. No. L-22306. March 18, 1967
FELICITAS C. TAN, EUGENIO GALVEZ, EMIGDIO MERCADO, CEBU YELLOW TAXI (MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC. & CEBU CHECKERED CAB CO., INC.), PETITIONERS, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION …
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
This is an appeal by Felicitas Tan, Eugenio Galvez, Emigdio Mercado and Cebu Yellow
Taxi (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. and Cebu
Checkered Cab Co., Inc.) from a decision of the Public Service Commission
granting Antonio de Pio a certificate of Public
convenience to operate fifteen (15) units of taxicabs within the City of Cebu.
Appellants maintain that said decision should be reversed
because: (a) Mrs. Tan has been denied
due process; and (b) said decision was rendered without evidence to reasonably
support its finding that there is public necessity for the operation of said
fifteen (15) units.
With respect to the first question, the record shows that, on or
about May 27, 1963, De Pio filed with the PSC, in
Manila an application for authority to operate twenty-five (25) units of
taxicabs in the Island of Cebu. Soon thereafter, or on July 31, 1963, the PSC
issued a notice setting said application for hearing on October 1, 1962, and requiring all affected operators
to file their oppositions thereto, if any, on or before the latter date. Eugenio Galvez, Emigdio Mercado and the Cebu Yellow Taxi (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc. and Cebu Checkered Cab Co., Inc.) filed their respective
oppositions in due time.
The opposition of Mrs.
Tan was sent by registered mail in Cebu to the PSC in Manila, on September 30, 1963.
Before it reached its destination, or on October 4, 1963, the PSC had issued an order commissioning
the Municipal Judge of Cebu City to receive such evidence as the parties may
wish to present. Inasmuch as Mrs. Tan’s
opposition had not, as yet, been received in the office of the PSC in Manila, she was not notified of this order, which,
seemingly, did not mention her among the oppositors
to De Pio’s application. Hence, neither did the Commissioner cause to
be served upon Mrs. Tan official notice of the first hearing scheduled to be
held in Cebu City on November 4, 1963, although De Pio’s
counsel stated, under oath, that he had personally notified her counsel of said
hearing. Further hearings were held on
November 7, 15 and 18, 1963, of which Mrs. Tan was not, for the same reason,
notified officially. In the course of
these hearings De Pio introduced documentary and
testimonial evidence, whereas appellees Galvez, Mercado and Cebu Yellow
Taxi (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., Cebu Checkered
Cab Co., Inc.) presented their own witnesses.
As a consequence, the only issue
raised before and resolved by the PSC was whether or not there is public necessity for the taxicab service
applied for, which, on December 4, 1963, the PSC decided in the
affirmative. Thereupon, or on January
8, 1964, Mrs. Tan
filed her
petition for review with this
Court.
It should be noted that
Mrs. Tan has not asked the PSC for, either a reconsideration of its
aforementioned decision, or a new trial to present her evidence. Neither has she stated in her petition for
review before us, what evidence, if any, she would introduce, should a new
trial be held. The record before us is
thus absolutely devoid of any indicia that would justify a reasonable belief or
expectation or even the hope, that the outcome of the case would be otherwise, if a new trial were held. There being
no showing that Mrs. Tan has suffered any substantial injury, she has
no cause
for complaint in this appeal.[1] Needless to say, the other oppositors can not even claim a denial of due process.
As regards the second
issue the decision appealed from has the
following to say:
“Although the applicant had only two witnesses and the oppositors, six, nevertheless the Commission finds that the
weight of evidence preponderates in favor of the applicant’s stand. For the criteria or yardstick used by the
Commission in weighing the oral testimony is not the quantity of witnesses
produced but by the quality of the statements adduced. It should be noted that four of the six
witnesses of oppositors were drivers or employees of
said oppositors.
Consequently, we find their testimony without such evidentiary value because the same is not completely free from
bias. Likewise we canot
give much weight to the testimony of the two other witnesses of the oppositors
that it is not hard to get a
taxicab in the City of Cebu. That
statement is more of a conjecture than a product of their own actual experience.
For both of them testified that in going from one point to
another in the City of Cebu they invariably take a jeepney
or a rig and only rarely do they ride in a taxicab. They were not even sure that the vacant taxicabs they claimed
to have seen running around were looking for passengers or actually answering phone
calls of prospective passengers, nor were they
certain that the vacant taxicabs they have seen parked were waiting for passengers
or merely parked because of engine
trouble or their drivers merely taking a brief rest.
“At this point, we wish to emphasize the fact that the oppositors‘
witnesses themselves testified to the existence of ‘Colorum‘ cars illegally competing with
authorized taxicabs for passengers. This, in itself, is a tangible indication of an existing demand for means of transportation other than jeepneys
or rigs. Moreover, these same witnesses
testified that there are eight or nine taxicab operators actually operating in Cebu City
although the records of the Commission show that there are eleven authorized to
operate a combined total of 273 units of these, however, about ten to twenty
per cent are not in actual operation. Lastly, our records show that the
last application for additional taxicab units in Cebu City was granted way back in November of 1960 or
more than three years ago. Certainly,
within that period of time Cebu must have expanded in population and
business activity.
“Premises considered, we find that there
is an existing public necessity for the service herein applied for. Considering that applicant has assets worth
about P360,000.00 plus a yearly income of about P15,500.00 and P45,000.00 ready
cash available for immediate investment; that he has a repair shop ready for
use; that he has had experience as a common carrier operator; that the Delta
Motors Corporation, distributor of Toyopet cars in
the Philippines, has already agreed to supply him with the necessary units;
that he already has the necessary personnel to implement the service applied
for, the Commission believes that public convenience would best be promoted if
we grant to the applicant herein fifteen (15) units only instead of the
twenty-five (25) herein applied for.”
The testimonial and documentary
evidence introduced in this case
substantially bear out the foregoing findings.
Mrs. Tan impugns the veracity of the testimonial evidence for appellee De Pio; but, in a
petition for review, like the one at bar, this Court will not disturb the
findings of the PSC on the credibility of witnesses, so long as their version
is not inherently improbable, which is
not the one before us.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be
as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Dizon, Regala,
Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and
Castro, JJ., concur.
[1]
Litam v.
Li Tan & Co., G.R. No. L-16954, April 25, 1962; National Marketing Corp. v. De Castro, G.R. No. L-12357, December 29, 1959; Suzara v. Caluag, G.R. No.
L-15404, April 25, 1962; Sharruf v. Bubla, G.R. No.
L-17029, September 30, 1964.