MANILA YELLOW TAXI-CAB, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EDMUNDO L. CASTELO, RESPONDENT.

On March 7, 1957, Edmundo L. Castelo filed an application with the
Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to
operate ten (10) units of taxicab service in the City of Cabanatuan,
and to all points, barrios and municipalities in the Island of Luzon.
The Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab Co., Inc., a grantee of a certificate of
public convenience operating ten taxicab units in the same territory,
opposed the application alleging, among others, that the taxicab
service now rendered by it is more than sufficient to meet the needs of
the riding public so that to approve the application would only create
a ruinuous competition, and that, in the event the Commission finds
that there is need for the proposed service, preferential right should
be given to said oppositor it being an old operator.

After
trial, the Commission, by a two to one vote, found for Castelo and
rendered decision granting him a certificate to operate six (6) units
of taxicab service in said territory. Not satisfied with the decision,
the oppositor elevated this case to this Court contending that the
Commission “ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NEED FOR MORE TAXICAB
FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF CABANATUAN AND THAT THE SERVICE NOW EXISTING
IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE NEEDS OF THE PUBLIC.”

To support
its claim, oppositor submitted testimonial as well as documentary
evidence consisting in the testimonies of six witnesses, namely: Pedro
C. Ladignon, Arturo Pineda, Vicenta de Jesus, Mario Santos, Romeo A.
Punzal, and Pedrito C. Arguelles. The documentary evidence consists of
Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, which show that oppositor is operating its taxicab
business in Cabanatuan City at a loss.

Pedro C. Ladignon, a
lawyer of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, testified that he goes to Cabanatuan
City three to four times a week; that the means of transportation in
the city are calesas, jitneys, big buses and the ten taxicabs
of oppositor; that he frequently sees empty taxicabs of oppositor; that
the riding public patronizes calesas, jitneys, auto-calesas and
big buses because the fare is cheaper than the taxicabs. On
cross-examination, he stated that he was a former classmate of Mr.
Punzal, the branch manager of oppositor; that he does not know of any
jitney or calesa which carries passengers from one point of the
poblacion to another within the City of Cabanatuan, and that the
jitneys and big buses carry passengers from the city to places outside
of its limits.

Arturo Pineda, Vicente de Jesus and Mario
Santos corroborated the testimony of Ladignon, while Romeo A. Punzal,
branch manager of oppositor, testified that he is operating ten units
in the city the latest models being Studebaker 1952; that during
daytime the available passengers are mostly emergency cases from
hospitals and merchants; that there are about 900 to 1,000 calesas
and about 500 to 500 jitneys in Cabanatuan City which are used as means
of transportation there and other towns; that the taxicab business of
oppositor in the city is losing because the average earning during the
lean months is from P6.00 to P7.00 per day per cab and it is only
during carnival season in Cabanatuan City that the taxicab averaged
from P20.00 to P25.00 a day. However, on cress-examination, he stated
that of the 10 units operated by oppositor, actually 7 are in
operation, for the other three are undergoing repairs for around one
month already; that there are flag-up cases involving drivers for which
some had been discharged, and that some of those discharged reported
daily earnings of P6.00 to P7.00.

Applicant, on the other
hand, also presented testimonial and documentary evidence, the latter
consisting of resolutions of Cabanatuan Jaycees and of Cabanatuan City
Council endorsing the move of applicant to operate additional taxi
units for the benefit and convenience of the public. Testifying in his
own behalf, he stated that there are seven colleges in Cabanatuan City
with an average enrollment of 2,000 students each, most of whom attend
night schools; that there are many government offices in the city such
as the PC Headquarters, Provincial Jail, Nursery, SEATO Camp, FACOMA,
etc.; that the students as well as the government employees are forced
to use calesas because of lack of available taxis; that
oppositor operates old units of 1952 model; that plenty of dust get
into the cars because the floors have holes; that patients of hospitals
cannot use the same because of this inconvenience, and there is only
one ambulance service offered by the provincial hospital whose charge
is higher than that of taxicabs; that there are many organizations
which have their offices in Cabanatuan City such as the Rotary, Jaycee
Club and the Lions Club; that the units of oppositor are inadequate
especially during rainy season when most of the cocheros devote
their time to planting palay; and that the resolutions of the Jaycees
and the City Council of Cabanatuan were passed without his intervention.

Enrique Ortiz, a member of Cabanatuan City Council, corroborated
applicant’s testimony as to the inadequacy of the service rendered by
oppositor. He stated that the passengers are rendered uncomfortable due
to the dust coming from holes of the floors of its cars, and that at
the regular meeting of the city council composed of five Nacionalistas
and three Liberals, the councilors unanimously agreed to seek approval
of oppositor’s application. On cross-examination, he stated that it is
hard to get transportation in going to the barrios at night; that
during daytime the cocheros first ask the passenger how far he
was going and if the place is about three kilometers away they refuse
to render service. He further stated that there are five theaters in
the city and the people who go out at 11:00 o’clock at night have to
walk for lack of transportation facilities.

Another witness
of applicant, Francisco San Vicente, testified as follows: that he is
an executive officer of the Philippine Statesman College and as such he
had occasion to study the existing conditions regarding the
transportation need of his students; that during dismissal hours large
number of students mill around the waiting shed and the entrance of the
school premises waiting for buses, calesas and jeeps up to
10:00 o’clock at night; that in May of 1957, at a meeting held by the
Rotary Club, of which he is secretary, the board of directors
petitioned the Public Service Commission to grant more taxicab units in
Cabanatuan City, a copy of which was furnished the Mayor of Cabanatuan;
and that many passengers from Manila walk home when they arrive in
Cabanatuan at 11:00 o’clock at night because there are no calesas, jitneys, or taxis available.

Upon the foregoing evidence submitted by both parties, the Public Service Commission made the following comment:

“After
a careful examination of the entire record, we find merit in the claim
of the applicant that there is a need for more taxicab facilities in
that City of Cabanatuan and that the service now existing is not
sufficient for the needs of the public. It appears that Cabanatuan is a
large city that is well populated with many business and commercial
establishments located in different places as well as schools and
colleges, both public and private, and that the people travel from
their homes to those places continuously. There is a showing that there
are many horse-drawn vehicles and auto-calesas operating within the
City, but it is a fact that the service of those vehicles is totally
different from that of a taxicab. There are circumstances under which
an auto-calesa or a horse-drawn vehicle would not serve the purpose of
a passenger who needs a conveyance for his own use up to the place
where he desires to go, to wait for him there, and bring him to another
place, which service can only be furnished by a taxicab. * * * We find
from the evidence that this is the situation in Cabanatuan City where
although there are auto-calesas plying within the city there is a class
of passengers who need taxicab facilities for their business or social
trips. We are inclined to believe the evidence of the applicant that
although the oppositor is authorized to operate 10 units in Cabanatuan
City, most of the time less than 10 units are in operation because
frequently units break down due to their defective condition and this
is also a reason why the vehicles are not patronized even by those who
need taxicabs. Oppositor’s claim that it has not made any profit in the
operation of its taxicabs cannot be attributed to the fact that there
is no demand for taxicab service but probably to the circumstance that
because of the physical condition of its vehicles, the taxicab-using
public does not patronize them. We are satisfied from the evidence that
the authorization to the applicant of six (6) taxicab units to
supplement the service now rendered by oppositor, will promote public
interests and convenience in a proper and suitable manner.”

We are inclined to uphold the above finding of the Commission. As we
have held in one case, whether public necessity and convenience warrant
the putting up of additional service is a question of fact and the
finding of the Public Service Commission being “supported by sufficient
evidence * * * the same should be left undisturbed” (Raymundo
Transportation Co. vs. Cervo, 91 Phil., 313). And we even went
to the extent of holding that this Court “will not substitute its
discretion for that of the Commission on question of fact and will not
interfere in the later’s decision unless it clearly appears that there
is no evidence to support it” (Santiago Ice Plant Co. vs.
Lahoz, 87 Phil., 221; 47 Off. Gaz. [12] 403). Here, a cursory
examination of the record will show that the finding of the Commission
is supported by ample evidence for, as found by it, Cabanatuan is a
large and well populated city where many schools, colleges, business
and commercial establishments are operating, and where people travel
from their homes continuously, so that even if the 10 units of
oppositor are actually put in operation they cannot cope with the
demand of the traveling public.

Oppositor claims, however,
that even if it be found that there is still need for additional taxi
service the authority to fill it should be given to oppositor by virtue
of its preferential right as an old operator. To meet this contention,
suffice it to quote hereunder what we said in the case of Isidro vs. Ocampo, 105 Phil., 911; 56 Off. Gaz. (41) 6341:

“*
* * Moreover, even assuming for a moment that petitioner were an old
operator on the line in question, nevertheless he has not applied for
an increase in his service but allowed another to do so; and according
to a line of decisions, it has been ruled that the granting of
preference to an old operator applies only when said old operator has
made an offer to meet the increase in traffic and not when another
operator even a new one, like respondent* * *, has made the offer to
serve the new line or increased the service on said line.” (See also cases cited therein)

Wherefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission is affirmed, with costs against oppositor.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.