RAMON SILOS, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., FAUSTO BARREDO, ANA VIUDA DE COROMINAS, TEODORO R. YANGCO, ACRO TAXICAB CO., INC., FRANCISCO JAVIER, …

Ramon Silos applied to the Public Service
Commission for a certificate of public convenience and authority to
operate a fleet of twenty-five midget taxicabs in the City of Manila
and its suburbs.

After hearing, the commission denied the application, and this appeal was then brought.

Among the reasons given by the commission for its action in
refusing to grant the certificate prayed for, was the doubt the
commission had of the financial responsibility of applicant. At the
time of the hearing there was strong opposition from the existing
taxicab operators to the granting of any additional certificates,
especially as they stood able and willing to increase their present
equipment to any extent deemed necessary by the commission to meet the
demand for taxicabs.

There was also a serious doubt in the minds of the commission at
the time of the hearing whether additional taxicabs were in fact
necessary, and if so, how many.

On the whole record we are convinced that in denying the
application of appellant the Public Service Commission did not act
arbitrarily but in the exercise of its sound discretion entrusted to
them by law, and that therefore this court should not interfere with
the orders in question.

The appeal is dismissed. Costs against appellant. So ordered.

Street, Abad Santos, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

---

MALCOLM and BUTTE, JJ.,

We concur for the reasons stated in our separate opinion attached to the case of Esmeralda Vesnan, petitioner and appellant, vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., et al., respondents and appellees, G. R. No. 40319.^[1]

---

^[1] Page 787, ante.

---

CONCCURING

GODDDARD, J.,

I concur on the grounds set forth in paragraphs three and four of
this decision and upon those stated in my dissenting opinion in the
companion cases, G. R. Nos. 40317 and 40319—E. Vesnan,^[2] applicant. The
evidence before the commission was sufficient to justify its decision.

---

^[2] Page 792, ante.

VILLA-REAL, J., concurring in the result:

Although I believe that the petitioner and appellant Ramon Silos is
entitled to the same equity that is granted to Esmeralda Vesnan in
companion case G. R. No. 40319, I am willing, however, to concur in the
result in view of the reservation made by the Public Service Commission
in its decision of later date in cases Nos. 35027, 35241, 35438, 35474,
35501, 35562, 35633, 35623, 35654, 35743, 35770, 36071, 36310, 36337,
36594 and 37410, certified copy of which has been attached to the
record of case, to wit:

“With the foregoing additional units there will be a total of 470
taxicabs, both of the big and small size, authorized to be operated in
the City of Manila and its1 suburbs. From the same sources which have
convinced this commission to authorize the issuance of new
certificates, we feel that more units may be authorized but these will
be reserved for future action. This will enable present operators who,
according to our records, have withdrawn their petitions for increases
of equipment on the ground that existing conditions obtaining in this
city at the time they filed their petitions did not justify such
increases, as well as those who have appealed their cases to the
Supreme Court, to apply for the same, in case they so desire.