G.R. No. 10831. April 28, 1960
RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. MARIANO GONZAGA, RESPONDENT.
PADILLA, J.:
review of the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission,
granting authority to the respondent to operate, with fixed routes and
regular term and time schedule for the transportation of passengers and
freight and under the terms and conditions set forth therein, one truck
in the line Aparri-Rizal via Dungao, Faire, Piat and Tuao;
one truck on the line Aparri-Sta. Ana; and one truck on the
Aparri-Tuguegarao, all in the province of Cagayan.
The Public Service Commission made the following findings and pronouncements—
As amended, this is an application for a certificate
of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service for the
transportation of passengers and freight on the following lines:Aparri (Cagayan)—Rizal (Cagayan) via Dungao, Faire, Piat and Tuao;
Aparri (Cagayan)—Sta. Ana (Cagayan) ; and
Aparri (Cagayan)—Taguegarao (Cagayan)with a proposed equipment of eight (8) units.
This
application is opposed by the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. (owners and
operators of the Rural Transit), Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., and
Estate of E. E. Vda. de Fernando for the reasons stated in their
respective written oppositions attached to the records.After
applicant had finished the presentation of his evidence he filed a
petition for provisional authority to operate on the lines applied for
and this Commission in an order dated July 18, 1955 authorized
applicant to operate provisionally one truck on the line Sta.
Ana-Aparri and one on the line Aparri-Rizal, pending final
determination of this case.It appears from the evidence
submitted by the applicant and the records, of this Commission that
applicant is an authorized TPU auto-truck operator on the line
Aparri-Piat by virtue of the certificate of public convenience issued
in his favor in Case No. 67507; that there is an urgent need for the
operation of additional buses on the lines applied for as the present
operators are rendering inadequate service; that during the summer
season there are plenty of passengers because there are barrio fiestas,
town fiestas and other special occasions: that the buses running on the
lines proposed to be served by applicant are very insufficient to
handle the volume of passengers during those months; that operators at
present do not follow their time schedules and passengers sometimes
have to wait for hours before they can ride; that Aparri is a
commercial center of Cagayan and there is a big volume of passengers
traveling to and from Aparri coming from the different points along the
lines applied for that there are many merchants who go to Aparri, Piat,
Tuao, Camalaniugan, Buguey, Gonzaga and Sta. Ana; that during the
months from January to August there is a big number of people from the
Ilocos region who go to, Buguey, Gonzaga, Gattaran, Lallo and Alcala to
help in the harvest in those towns and the present means of
transportation are not enough to handle all these passengers because
buses are oftentimes packed to capacity and there are many people
waiting for transportation along the way who cannot be accommodated;
that in Sta. Ana they catch plenty of fish which the inhabitants carry
to Aparri, Buguey; Gonzaga and other towns and there are many fish
vendors who travel from Sta. Ana to Aparri and vice-versa: that
Tuguegarao as the capital of the province of Cagayan is also a
commercial center and the buses of the Red Line Transportation Co.,
Rural Transit and the Angat Manila Transportation, are inadequate to
meet the needs of the travelling public; that the buses of the
oppositors are already fully loaded when they leave Aparri and cannot
pick up passengers waiting along the road; that the Red Line
Transportation Co. is rendering poor service and the people are
complaining of the lack of transportation facilities.On the
other hand, the oppositors Red Line Transportation Co, and Rural
Transit submitted evidence to the effect that there are already many
TPU auto-truck operators on the lines applied for in the present case;
that the authorized capacity of the buses operating on these lines
ranges from 30 to 60 but they carry an average load of only from 18 to
20 passengers; and that the present services of the said oppositors and
other operators on the lines in question are more than sufficient to
take care of the needs of the traveling public.After a
careful study of the evidence submitted by the parties as well as the
records of this Commission on auto-truck services on the lines covered,
by the present application, we are convinced that there is sufficient
traffic to warrant the grant to the applicant of authority to operate
one truck on the line Aparri-Rizal via Durigao, Faire, Piat
& Tuao; one truck on the line Aparri-Sta. Ana and one truck on the
line Aparri-Tuguegarao, instead of the eight trucks proposed by the
applicant.* * *
Petitioner contends that the Public Service Commission should have
denied the application for the reason that the respondent is already a
holder of a certificate of public convenience to operate an auto truck
service from the town of Aparri to the municipality of Piat, such
certificate having been granted subject to a condition that during the
five-year life of the certificate its holder would not ask for
extension of line or trips or Increase of equipment, and that there is
absolutely no evidence to support: the decision.
The questions to be decided then are (1) whether the Public Service
Commission erred in granting the certificate of public convenience to
the respondent, the latter being a holder of another certificate
granted to him in case No. 67507, subject to a condition that during
its lifetime of five years he (the respondent) would not ask for
extension of line or trips or increase of equipment; and (2) whether
there is evidence to support the decision complained of.
The petitioner claims that the condition imposed in case No. 67507
was voluntarily offered by the respondent, and for that reason it
desisted, from further objecting to the application filed therein,
believing that the certificate of public convenience to be granted then
to the respondent, subject to the condition referred to, would not harm
or cause damage to its transportation business, and it agreed to the
granting and issuance of the certificate to the respondent. Petitioner
further contends that the auto truck service applied for and authorized
on the line from Aparri to Rizal, for all intents and purposes is an
extension of the Aparri-Piat line.
In the certificate granted in case No. 67507, the line is from the
town of Aparri passing through the towns of Camalaniugan, Lallo,
Gattaran, Faire, to Piat, the line terminal. In the certificate granted
by the Public Service Commission in its decision now under review, the
first line is from Aparri passing through the towns of Camalaniugan,
Lal-lo, Gattaran, Faire (up to this point the same partial line as that
granted in case No. 67507), Tuao, to Rizal, its terminal; the second
line is from Aparri passing through the towns of Camalaniugan, Gonzaga,
to Santa Ana, its terminal; and the third line is from Aparri passing
through the towns of Camalaniugan, Lal-lo, Gattaran (up to this point
the same partial line as that granted in case No. 67507), Alcala,
Amulung, Iguig to Tuguegarao, its terminal.
It is, therefore, apparent that the first line from Aparri to Rizal
is not strictly an extension of the former line authorized in case No.
67507, because it deviates from Faire to Tuao to reach Rizal, the line
terminal. Neither is the third line from Aparri to Tuguegarao, its
terminal, strictly an extension of the former line authorized in case
No. 67507, because although passing through the same town up to
Gattaran the former line continues to Faire and Piat, the line
terminal; whereas the third line is from Gattaran passing through the
towns of Alcala, Amulung, Iguig to Tuguejrarao, the line terminal.
And even granting that the first and third lines or routes under the
last certificate granted by the Public Service Commission were an
extension of the Aparri-Piat line under the former certificate granted
by the Commission, still if the Commission is satisfied that public
service or convenience requires or demands that the line of such
extension be run, operated and served and that the applicant is
financially capable of operating it, the Commission has the power to
grant a certificate of public convenience to the applicant for the
operation of such extension line.[1]
As to the claim that there is no evidence to sustain the decision,
we find that there is enough evidence to support it. Not only did the
Public Service Commission take into consideration the evidence
submitted by the parties but it also considered the records of
auto-truck services on the lines within the territory where the
respondent applies to operate his lines.
The decision under review is affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
[1] Section 16(m), Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended; Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. vs. Fernando Enriquez, 66 Phil., 645; Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, 59 Phil., 278; Negros Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. vs. Public Service Commission, et al., 90 Phil., 138; and Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Saulog Transit, Inc., 99 Phil., 443; 63 Off. Gaz. (17) 6638.