RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. LUNETA MOTOR CO. AND LAGUNA-TAYABAS BUS CO., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

IMPERIAL, J.:

In civil case No. 42163 of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Luneta Motor Co., Inc., vs. Nicanor de
Guzman, the plaintiff attached the defendant’s certificates of public
convenience and the same were sold at public auction to said plaintiff.
Said sale was approved by the Public Service Commission in cases Nos.
33031 and 35810 and was confirmed by this court in cases Nos. 39902 and
39903.^[1]

Luneta Motor Co., Inc., sold the same certificates
for P4,000 to Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and both filed application in case
No. 36603 praying the commission to approve the second sale. It was in
this case where the appellant Raymundo Transportation Co., Inc., opposed
the approval of the sale praying that it be given preference to buy
said certificates for the same amount on the ground that it is an
operator on the same Pililla, Rizal-Manila line and that to approve the
sale in question would be to sanction a ruinous competition between it
and the buyer. After due hearing, the commission denied the opposition
and approved the sale. The oppositor appealed.

The appellant assigns the following alleged errors
in the decision appealed from:

“Error No. 1.—That the Public Service
Commission erred in permitting and authorizing the appellee,
Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., to invade the territory of the herein appellant.

“Error No. 2.—That the Public Service
Commission erred in perpetuating the ruinous competition in the line
Pililla— Manila and in not attempting to protect the old existing
operators in the said line, more particularly the appellant herein,
knowing fully well that there is ruinous competition in the said line.

“Error No. 3.—That the Public Service
Commission erred in not holding that the appellant has a preferential
right to acquire the line in question as pioneer operator in the said
line, thereby avoiding ruinous competition.

“Error No. 4.—That the Public Service
Commission erred in denying the appellant’s motion for reconsideration
and rehearing.”

In approving the sale, the commission, based its
decision on the following considerations, to wit: that the sale of the
certificates to Luneta Motor Co., Inc., already constitutes res
judicata on the ground that it was approved and sanctioned by final
judgment; that the appellant had had opportunity to acquire the said
certificates at the public auction but it did nothing to that effect;
that the circumstances stated did not show that a ruinous competition
would necessarily arise between the operators and that the objection
based on this ground cannot be interposed in the case for the approval
of the sale in favor of the appellee but that it should have been raised
when the original operator had applied for the issuance of the said
certificates, and that the appellant cannot successfully invoke the
established doctrines on preference, improvement and increase of
equipment on the ground that the case does not involve an application
for new certificates.

This court has carefully exa-nined the record and
found nothing to support the appeal. The decision is supported by the
facts and is in accordance with the general principles governing the
matter involved in the case. The fact that the original operator did not
succeed in his business for which reason his certificates were attached
and finally sold at public auction, does not necessarily mean that his
failure was due to ruinous competition because it might as well have
been due to other causes, such as poor management. On the contrary, the
acquisition of the same business by the appellee is an indication that
it is not a poor one and that it may be continued with possibilities of
obtaining a reasonable profit.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed,
with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Goddard,
JJ., concur.