INOCENCIO TAN SIMA, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. DOLORES HACBANG, OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

This
is a petition filed by Dolores Hacbang to have this court review the
decision rendered by the Public Service Commission in case No. 23966,
to set aside the same and to cancel the certificate of public
convenience issued to Inocencio Tan Sima. In other words, this is an
appeal from said decision.

In the above-mentioned case No.
23966, Inocencio Tan Sima filed an application to operate two trucks
between Catbalogan and Gandara; and Catbalogan, Wright and Loquinlocon,
and vice versa. Dolores Hacbang opposed this application alleging that
she is a regular operator on said lines, that the service rendered by
her nine (9) trucks is satisfactory, that the public interests would
not be served by granting the new certificate of public convenience
applied for, and the issuance thereof would only result in encouraging
ruinous competition. Evidence therein was heard by the justice of the
peace of the provincial capital of Catbalogan who was designated
commissioner for that purpose. Considerable time having elapsed without
Hacbang’s presenting any evidence, the Public Service Commission, on
January 15, 1932, rendered the decision appealed from granting Tan Sima
the permit applied for and issuing the corresponding certificate.
Hacbang filed a motion for a new trial and succeeded in having the
commission reopen the case in order to permit her to present her
evidence in the said justice of the peace court. After the additional
evidence had been presented, the commission, on March 22d of the same
year, denied the motion for a new trial and affirmed its former
decision permitting Tan Sima to operate his two trucks under the
certificate already issued to him. Subsequent to the filing of Tan
Sima’s application, Hacbang filed cases Nos. 27850, 28004 and 28123
with the Public Service Commission. In the first case she was granted a
certificate to operate nine (9) trucks between:

	Calbayog-Loquinlocon
	Loquinlocon-Calbayog
	Oquendo-Calbayog
	Calbayog-Oquendo
	Oquendo-Catarman
	Catarman-Oquendo

In the second, she was permitted to operate the same trucks between:

	Calbayog-Oquendo
	Oquendo-Calbayog
	Calbayog-Tambungan
	Tambungan-Calbayog

and in the last, she was authorized to operate the same equipment on the following routes:

	Calbayog-Gandara
	Gandara-Calbayog
	Calbayog-Oquendo
	Oquendo-Calbayog

Hacbang obtained her certificates in the above three cases prior to Tan
Sima in spite of the fact that he filed his application in the
aforementioned case before she did. The lines granted Tan Sima are:

	Catbalogan-Gandara
	Gandara-Catbalogan
	Catbalogan-Wright
	Wright-Catbalogan
	Wright-Loquinlocon
	Loquinlocon-Wright

Dolores Hacbang assigns the following alleged errors in the decision appealed from:

“FIRST ERROR

“The
decision of the Public Service Commission dated January 15th last and
affirmed by another dated March 22d last is uneconomic (anti-economica).

“SECOND ERROR

“The aforementioned decision is in conflict with the general rule laid down by this court in similar and analogous cases.”

There is not the least doubt that Hacbang was an operator rendering
regular service on the lines covered by the certificate subsequently
granted Tan Sima, and the only question raised in the appeal is whether
the facts proved and the law applicable thereto warrant the issuance in
his name of the new certificate of public convenience.

Taking into consideration the number of passengers and the volume of
freight involved, we find that Hacbang rendered satisfactory service on
said lines. There was no necessity of granting a certificate to a new
operator on said lines because public interests would not be benefited
nor served thereby. In view of the traffic conditions and the volume of
business handled by the lines in question, it may be said that an
additional carrier would give rise to unjust and ruinous competition.

On the other hand, it appears that, as a prior operator Hacbang was not
given the opportunity either to improve her service or to increase her
equipment in the event that such action would have been justified.
Later, another carrier was permitted to operate over the same route
which, naturally, prejudiced the former’s certificates which should be
protected in conformity with the law.

In the case of Batangas Transportation Co. vs.
Orlanes (52 Phil., 455), this court enunciated the principles that
should govern the granting of certificates of public convenience as
follows:

“It is not the policy of the law
for a Public Service Commission to issue a certificate of public
convenience to a second operator to cover the same field and in
competition with a first operator who is rendering sufficient, adequate
and satisfactory service, and who in all things and respects is
complying with the rules and regulations of the commission.

* * * * * * *

“So
long as the first licensee keeps and performs the terms and conditions
of its license and complies with the reasonable rules and regulations
of the commission and meets the reasonable demands of the public, it
has more or less of a vested and preferential right over another who
seeks to acquire a later license to operate over the same route.

“To
carry out the purpose and intent for which the Public Service
Commission was created, the law contemplates that the first licensee
will be protected in his investment and will not be subjected to a
ruinous competition.

“The primary purpose of the Public
Service Commission Law is to secure adequate, sustained service for the
public at the least possible cost, and to protect and conserve
investments which have already been made for that purpose.

“A
certificate of convenience and necessity for the operation of an auto
truck line in occupied territory ought not to be granted where there is
no complaint as to existing rates and the company in the field is
rendering adequate service.”

The same rule has been followed by this court in the case of Batangas Transportation Company vs. Ochoa (G. R. No. 29154).^[1]

In the case of Bohol Land Transportation Co. vs. Jureidini (53 Phil., 560), this court said:

“Before
granting a certificate of public necessity and convenience to a
transportation company or common carrier on land, there being another
with a proper certificate, the latter should be given an opportunity to
improve its service, if deficient or inadequate.”

In granting Tan Sima his certificate, it appears that the commission’s
decision was based principally on the circumstance that he was the
first to file his application, but this reason was not sufficient to
warrant such action because the priority which the law protects does
not consist in the date of the filing of the application but that of
the issuance of the certificate of convenience and, in any event, that
on which a public service begins to operate. In the case at bar, it
appears that Hacbang has priority rights, being the first to obtain
certificates of convenience and also the first to operate a unit of
nine (9) trucks on the lines in question.

In the case of Javier vs.
Orlanes (53 Phil., 468), we held that “priority in filing an
application for a certificate of public convenience, which has not been
acted upon, does not give the party filing it any right to invade the
territory of another whose application, though filed subsequently, has
been acted upon, and to whom the certificate solicited has been issued.”

The decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the certificate of
public convenience issued to Inocencio Tan Sima cancelled, with costs
against the appellee. So ordered.

Villamor, Villa-Real, Hull, and Vickers, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Promulgated December 20, 1928, not reported.