VALLE BROS., INC., PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ISMAEL MELENDRES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the
Public Service Commission dated December 2, 1960, granting the
respondent Ismael Melendres a certificate of public convenience to
operate ten (10) auto-truck services on the line San Jose
(Makati, Rizal) – Divisoria (Manila) and vice-versa and of the
resolutions of the same Commission denying the petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration of the said decision.

On July 2, 1960, respondent Ismael Melendres filed
with the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of
public convenience to operate 12 units on the Taguig (Rizal)—Divisoria
(Manila) line, via Makati (Rizal), Sta. Ana, Paco, Ermita and
Sta. Cruz and vice-versa. Among the operators affected by the above
application were the Taguig-Pateros-Transportation. Company, Inc. and
Fortunato Halili (Halili Transit) who both had certificates on the
Taguig-Divisoria line. Prior to the filing of the respondent’s
application, however, the above two affected operators have re-routed
their Taguig-Divisoria via Makati line on the via Mandaluyong
route so that the application of the respondent herein, Ismael
Melendres, on the Taguig-Divisoria via Makati line did not really
concern their operation. Thus it was that in one of the hearings had on
the above application, more specifically the hearing on October 31,
1960, TPT Trans. Co., Inc. and Halili Transit proposed to drop their
oppositions to the application if the applicant would shorten the line
applied for from the original Taguig-Divisoria line to the
Makati-Divisoria line. This proposal was accepted by the applicant,
thus paving the way for the promulgation of the decision under question.

On the other hand, the line authorized to the petitioner herein is Makati-Quiapo via Ayala Bridge
so that respondent Ismael Melendres maintains that it is not affected
by his application, even when it was shortened to the Makati-Divisoria
line since the certificate of the petitioner is on the via Ayala Bridge line while his passes through the Sta. Cruz or MacArthur Bridge.

Several hearings were conducted on the original
application of the above-named respondent, namely, on August 3, 1960,
then on August 18, September 2 and 27, October 21 and finally October
31, 1960. As mentioned earlier, the TPT Trans. Co., Inc. and Halili
Transit, the only affected operators to register their oppositions to
the application, proposed at the hearing of October 31, 1960 a
compromise of sorts to the effect that if the applicant would shorten
his route applied for into the Makati-Divisoria line, they would
withdraw their oppositions, which offer was thereupon accepted by the
applicant and which agreement eventually became the basis of the
Commission’s decision of December 2, 1960 complained of in this
instance.

As recited in the decision of December 2, 1960, the
petitioner herein “received the notice sent by the applicant on July
23, 1960, and did not file any opposition on or before the date of the
hearing, and upon motion made by counsel for applicant in open court,
was already declared in default.” This fact is even impliedly admitted
by the petitioner since in its brief, it owns that its opposition to
the application was first filed on October 26, 1960, or only after some
four hearings have already been had on the suit.

The decision in question, in view of the withdrawal
of the oppositions to the respondent’s application, was signed by just
one Commissioner of the respondent Commission as the case was then
deemed uncontested. Finally, the said decision found as a fact that the
applicant-respondent was qualified and financially capable to operate
and maintain the proposed service and that the same would inure to
public interest and convenience.

The petitioner assails the validity of the
aforementioned decision upon several grounds the principal ones of
which are the following, to wit:

First. The amendment of the original application
from the proposed Taguig-Divisoria line into the Makati-Divisoria line
should have been effected in writing and notice of the same served upon
all affected operators.

Second. The decision of December 2, 1960 was
contrary to the respondent Commission’s Memorandum Order of January 28,
1959 which prohibited the issuance of new certificates of public
convenience on lines within the City of Manila and its environs.

Third. The said decision was void because it was signed by only one Commissioner even as it was a contested case.

We find the foregoing contentions untenable.

To begin with, the records of this case bear out
that at the time the amendment to the original application was agreed
upon by the parties herein on October 31, 1960, the petitioner herein
had already lost its standing in this suit. It had previously been
declared in default and the order to that effect does not appear to
have ever been lifted. Even assuming, therefore, that the afore said
amendment of the original application should have been effected in
writing and copies of the same served upon the affected operators,
still the petitioner herein would not have been entitled to it
nevertheless since, upon the rules and as herebefore said, it had lost
all standing.

Besides, it was not really an amendment that the
respondent applicant consented to be done on his original application
since the change effected therein did not involve any line or route
different from any of those mentioned in the original application. All
that the change consisted in was in the shortening of the line applied
for, involving, however, exactly the same streets or routes as those in
the original application. The original application was for the
Taguig-Divisoria via Makati line: the span from Taguig to
Makati was dropped and the line applied for was shortened to the length
alone of the Makati-Divisoria line. What was agreed upon, therefore,
was not strictly an amendment of the line applied for, but a compromise
on it. And considering that the change was not really proposed or
initiated by the applicant but by the oppositors — the proposal was
merely accepted by the applicant — it would indeed have only been a
superfluous duplicity and an unnecessary ceremony to have notified the
oppositors of the shortening of the line applied for. The only
oppositors at that time entitled to any such notification were the very
authors of the amendment.

Neither is the contention that the decision of
December 2, 1960 is contrary to the respondent Commission’s Memorandum
Order of January 28, 1959 well taken. The said Memorandum Order banned
the issuance of certificates of public convenience on new services
within the City of Manila and its environs.^[1] On
the other hand, what was granted in this incident was a certificate for
the replacement of abandoned services on the Makati-Divisoria line. In
other words, the certificate issued in this instance was not by way of
providing for new services, which is what is proscribed by the
Memorandum Order, but rather for the purpose of reinstating the
abandoned services on the Makati-Divisoria line. The award made in this
case did not involve the putting into service of additional units on
the line in question; it merely revived the abandoned units authorized
therein.

Besides, in the exercise of its authority, the
Commission’s first consideration is and should always be public
interest and convenience. (Cebu Ice and Cold Storage Corporation v.
Velez, 57 Phil. 309). Thus, the Commission may even go so far as to
revoke certificates of public convenience already issued if the
circumstances under which they were granted have materially changed.
(Pasay Trans. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 59 Phil. 278). Even if
we were to accept, therefore, that the Memorandum Order in question
comprehends the application of the applicant-respondent herein, still
the decision prayed to be set aside ought to be sustained in view of
the Commission’s positive finding of public need and interest
therefore. Between the latter and an administrative rule of the
Commission, it seems basic that public welfare and convenience deserve
the preference.

Finally, this Court finds no merit either in the
claim that the decision in question is void because it was signed by
only one Commissioner. While it is true that it carries the signature
of only one Commissioner, it is equally true that this case is an
uncontested one. Of course, at its inception, a number of oppositions
were registered against this application but they were all subsequently
withdrawn. Insofar as the petitioner’s opposition was concerned,
suffice it to say that the same was completely inconsequential and
worthless considering that it was filed after it had been declared in
default and stripped of any standing in relation to the application.
The respondent Commission was, therefore, right and correct in ignoring
the said opposition and in considering it as not having been filed at
all. Consequently, there is nothing irregular nor unlawful in the
decision in question having been signed by just one Commissioner since
Section 3 of the Public Service Act explicitly provides that
“uncontested cases, except those pertaining to the fixing of rates,
shall be decided by one Commissioner.”

The petitioner also questions the findings of the
respondent Commission on the need and necessity for the service in
question. This is, however, a factual consideration which, time and
again, we have held should best be left to the sound discretion of the
said Commission. Unless the evidence on record clearly show that the
respondent Commission has abused its discretion in that respect, a
situation that does not obtain in this instance, the finding of facts
made by it will be respected by this Court.

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition at bar is hereby dismissed and the questioned decision of December 2, 1960 affirmed. Costs against the petitioner.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, JP and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Sanchez, J., no part.

---

^[1] So far as involved herein, the Memorandum Order provides:

“Until further orders, no application proposing the operation of new
TPU, TH, TG, TAXI, G, PU and AC services within the City of Manila and
its environs shall be accepted for docketing in the Commission.”