THE PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO., APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT.

On November 26, 1926, Inocencio M. Delgado made an application to
the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience
for the operation of an auto truck service for transportation of
freight and passengers between Las Pinas—Divisoria Market,
Cavite—Quiapo Market, Quiapo—La Farola, San Lazaro Race Course—Balic
Balic Cockpit and Sampaloc—Quinta Market with fixed routes and regular
termini. After due publication and hearing, the application was granted
on January 11, 1927.

Delgado operated the auto truck service until the latter part of
December, 1927, when he transferred the enterprise to the Pasay
Transportation Company, which transfer was approved by the Public
Service Commission on March 14, 1928.

On March 30, 1928, the Pasay Transportation Company filed a motion
with the Public Service Commission praying for authority to operate a
half-hour service between F. B. Harrison Street and Divisoria Market,
but running a fifteen-minute service during heavy traffic. The Manila
Electric Company, operating the street-car service of the City of
Manila, opposed the motion, but on May 25, 1928, the Public Service
Commission granted said motion and issued an order authorizing the
Pasay Transportation Company to operate an auto truck service, for the
transportation of freight and passengers, between F. B. Harrison
Street, in Pasay, and Divisoria Market, in the City of Manila, passing
through the following streets: Libertad and Dominga, in Pasay, and Vito
Cruz, Singalong, San Andres, Dart, Paco Market, Dart, Looban, Isaac
Peral, Marques de Comillas, Ayala Bridge, Echague, Quinta Market,
Villalobos, Plaza Miranda, Evangelista, Raon, Ongpin, Gandara, Nueva,
Ongpin, Plaza de Binondo, Puente del General Blanco and Santo Cristo,
in the City of Manila.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by the Manila Electric
Company and denied by the Public Service Commission on June 13, 1928,
whereupon the Manila Electric Company appealed to this court and now
makes the following assignments of error:

“1. The Public Service Commission erred in entering
its order of May 25, 1928, authorizing the appellee to operate an
auto-truck service between F. B. Harrison Street, in Pasay, (Rizal) and
Divisoria Market, in the City of Manila.

“2. The Public
Service Commission erred in overruling appellant’s motion for
reconsideration of the said order of the Commission of May 25, 1928.”

While on their face the assignments of error go only to the order of
May 25, 1928, the appellant’s argument relates principally to the order
of January 11, 1927, granting Delgado’s application, and the burden of
that argument is that the order for the publication of the hearing of
the application contained no statement to the effect that Delgado had
applied for authority to transport freight or carry passengers between
intermediate points and that therefore the appellant did not raise any
objection to the application at that time.

We can find but little force in that contention. Delgado’s
application was accompanied by complete schedules containing lists of
streets and fares to be charged between the intermediate points. These
schedules were open to public inspection, and their contents could
easily have been ascertained by the appellant. The application itself
was sufficient to put the appellant on its guard, and its failure to
make the necessary inquiries can only be regarded as negligence; it
could hardly be expected that the order of publication would contain
all the details pertaining to the application. The point in question
was not raised until over a year after the certificate of public
convenience was issued, and it is now too late to ask for the
cancellation of said certificate.

Neither can we find any reversible error in the order of May 25,
1928. The order does not call for any change in the original routes but
relates only to transportation rates and stopping places. From the
evidence presented, we cannot find that the order in question will
create unfair and unreasonable competition to such an extent as to call
for the intervention of this court; we can only modify or set aside an
order of the Public Service Commission “when it clearly appears that
there was no evidence before the Commission to support reasonably such
order, or that the same was without the jurisdiction of the Commission”
(sec 35, Act No. 3108).

The orders appealed from are affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.