PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. JUANITO NASTOR, RESPONDENT.

Juanito Nastor applied with the Public Service Commission for a
certificate of public convenience to operate a TPU auto-truck service
for the transportation of passengers and freight on the line San
Manuel-Dagupan City and vice versa, province of Pangasinan, with a
proposed equipment of three units.

The Pangasinan Transportation Company filed a written opposition on
the grounds that the applicant is not financially capable of
maintaining the services applied for and that the services rendered by
the oppositor and other regular operators on the said lines are more
than sufficient and adequate to serve the needs of the public and,
therefore, the granting of the certificate to the applicant would only
result in superfluous and duplicated service, ruinous competition and
ultimately prejudice public service.

After both the applicant and oppositor had adduced their respective
evidence, the Commission rendered judgment unanimously overruling the
opposition and granting the issuance to the applicant of a certificate
of public convenience for the operation of three (3) auto-trucks on the
line San Manuel-Dagupan City, and vice versa.

The decision being adverse to its interests, the Pangasinan
Transportation Company brought the case here for review, asserting that
the Public Service Commission erred (1) in granting the respondent a
certificate of public convenience notwithstanding the insufficiency of
the evidence to reasonably support the grant of the certificate; and
(2) in not holding that the approval of the application would cause
ruinous competition among the petitioner, the respondent and other
present operators on the line covered by the application and which
would undoubtedly be detrimental to public necessity and convenience.

It is well settled that the factual findings of the Public Service
Commission are binding upon this Court as long as they are reasonably
supported by the evidence (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Acro Taxicab
Co. vs. Danon, 58 Phil., 75; Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc., vs. Cerda, 99 Phil., 99; 52 Off. Gaz. [7] 3580; Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., et al. vs. Pabalan, 98 Phil., 924; 53 Off. Gaz. [4] 1102; A.L. Ammen Transportation Co. vs.
Soriano, G. E. No. L-12350, May 26, 1959, and several others.) And in
reviewing the decision of the Commission, the Court is not required to
examine the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or
not the preponderance of evidence really justifies the conclusions
therein (Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Ramon J. Guico, etc., 106 Phil., 118; 57 Off. Gaz. [24] 4433.

We are, therefore, called upon in this case to determine merely
whether the evidence of record substantially supports the following
findings and conclusions of the Commission:

“After careful consideration of the evidence, both
oral and documentary, presented by the parties, as well as the records
of this Commission on authorized services in the region applied for, we
are convinced that there is need for the operation of additional
service, considering the fact that on the line between San Manuel and
Dagupan City there is a big volume of passengers coining from the
various big towns and their respective barrios. Exhibits “1-28” of the
oppositor clearly show that the Pangasinan Transportation Company
operates only one (1) bus a day between San Manuel and Dagupan City and
vice versa and that Exhibits “29-57″ also show that the said Company
operates one (1) bus a day between Tayug and Dagupan City and vice
versa. Such being the case, therefore, it is clear that there is only
one direct continuous trip a day of the oppositor company on the line
applied for, as the other trip earning from Tayug bound for Dagupan
City passes Binalonan already full of passengers. It is for this
inconvenience that prompted applicant to operate these TPU buses to
afford the traveling public a sufficient, adequate and continuous
direct trip from San Manuel to Dagupan City and vice versa.”

Going over the record we have found that two witnesses for the
applicant, and the latter himself who have been commuting regularly
through the lines involved in this case took the stand and testified to
the effect that the trips along the said lines are on most occasions
filled to capacity because of the big volume of passengers coming from
the various towns—-Mangaldan, San Jacinto, Manaoag and Binalonan—and
their corresponding barrios along the route. Indeed, this evidence
could not be easily out-weighed by the evidence presented by the
petitioner. For as correctly observed by the Commission, Exhibits
“3-28” for petitioner consisting of drivers’ reports on the San
Manuel-Dagupan city line and vice versa show that the petitioner
operates only one (1) bus a day along that line. Exhibits “29-57”
consist of reports on the line Dagupan-Tayug, via Binalonan. This line
does not directly pass thru San Manuel, and even if it does, the
reports show that the petitioner operates also only one bus a day along
that line. This single trip daily coming from Tayug bound for Dagupan
City, when it passes Binalonan and San Manuel, more probably, is
already full of passengers.

The drivers’ reports may show a scarcity of passengers, but it
appears that they cover only the month of February, 1957. This period
being very limited, we cannot escape the supposition that the reports,
which were adduced to serve the petitioner, represent a lean period for
carriers when people in the area devote most of their time to other
occupations and can not travel much due to weather or crop conditions.
To merit credence, the petitioner should have presented a year’s or at
least six month’s report.

As may be gleaned from the above, there is not much to rebut the
evidence presented by the applicant, now respondent, and there is
really sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence to support
substantially the findings of the Public Service Commission.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, at petitioner’s costs.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.