MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS, VS. N. & B. STABLES CO., INC., RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This case embraces five appeals taken, the
first by the petitioner Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., the second by
Fausto Barredo, the third by Ana Vda. de Corominas, the fourth by
Teodoro R. Yangco and the fifth by Francisco Javier, from the decision
rendered by the Public Service Commission in cases Nos. 36319 (G. R.
No. 41443) and 35027 (G. R. No. 41448), granting the applicants the N.
& B. Stables Co., Inc., and Domingo Vital certificates of public
convenience to operate, the former 30 taxicabs in addition to its
garage cars and the latter 20 taxicabs in substitution of so many of
its garage cars for the transportation of passengers without a fixed
route within the City of Manila and the neighboring municipalities.

The appellants assign, in support of their appeal, seven alleged
errors as committed by the Public Service Commission in its said
decision, which will be discussed hereinbelow.

The principal question to be decided in these appeals, and to which
those raised by the appellants in their seven assignments of alleged
errors may be reduced, is whether or not there is evidence of record
reasonably supporting the appealed decision.

On this point the Public Service Commission in its decision in question states as follows:

“From the. results of our own careful observation
and investigation of the operation of taxicabs in the city as well as
the evidence of record, the commission is satisfied that the taxicab
situation has not yet reached that point of saturation which would
induce us to rule that no additional units should be allowed to be
operated, either by the granting of certificates to new applicants or
authorizing the increase of the equipment of the present operators.
Therefore as the applicants have shown by their evidence that they are
financially able to operate and maintain the taxicab service which they
are applying for and that such services will promote public welfare,
the commission believes that their applications are deserving of
favorable, consideration.”

Therefore the Public Service Commission has arrived at the
conclusion that the public taxicab service in the City of Manila has
not yet reached such a state as not to permit the operation of more
cars, after a careful observation and investigation of said service and
after considering the evidence of record consisting of the testimony of
said applicants and their witnesses.

In the case of San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid (53 Phil., 539), this court, reiterating the doctrine laid down in the cases of the Philippine Shipowners’ Association vs. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal (43 Phil., 328), and Ynchausti Steamship Co. vs. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal (44 Phil., 363), stated as follows:

“PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ; REVIEW OF ORDERS.—When
an order of the Public Service Commission, granting a privilege to an
applicant, is reasonably supported by the evidence, there is no reason
to reverse the order of the commission, because, as was said in the
case of Dauner vs. Unson (G. R. No. 28957, promulgated
September 29, 1928, not reported), decided by the second division of
this court, .in reviewing orders of this character, it must be
remembered that this court is not required to examine the proof de novo
and to determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of the
evidence really justifies the order issued by the lower court.”

The appellants question the sufficiency of .said evidence to
reasonably support the decision in question on the ground that the
commission lacks authority to base its decision relative to the
existence or inexistence of a public necessity for more taxicabs upon
the result of its own observation and investigation of the operation of
taxicabs in the City of Manila; that a great part of the oral evidence
adduced at the hearing had already been presented by E. Vesnan (Case
No. 31423), the Austin Taxicab Co. (Case No. 33453), Panfilo Sabellano
(Case No. 34983) and Ramon Silos (Case No. 39434) in support of former
applications, which evidence the commission deemed insufficient to
justify the grant of the total number of cars for the operation of
which Esmeralda Vesnan sought authority, and the grant of the
applications of the Austin Taxieab Co., Panfilo Sabellano and Ramon
Silos, and that the additional evidence fails to show that from the
taking of the former evidence until the presentation of the new
evidence within the period of six months, there has been a change in
the economic and social conditions in Manila to justify the increase of
the number of taxicabs in operation.

In deciding the former cases above cited, the Public Service Commission stated the following in its decision:

“While the commission is satisfied that the present
number of taxieab operators, including those herein granted
certificates, taking into account the resources at their command, is
sufficient to fill the public need for the time being, nevertheless
with the data before us we do not feel justified just now in making a
definite announcement as to the number of operators and units of
taxicabs that should be authorized until a more thorough investigation
can be made on that point.”

It will be seen that the Public Service Commission was not certain
whether or not the number of taxicabs then in operation, together with
the additional ones authorized, was sufficient to satisfy the public
need, although the commission believed at the time that it was, leaving
the final determination of the question until after it has conducted a
more thorough investigation. Therefore the fact that the Public Service
Commission, in case No. 31423 (G. R. No. 40139), has refused to
authorize E. Vesnan to operate 200 bantam taxicabs, granting her only
10 which this court increased to 20, because it then believed, in view
of the limited data available, that the public necessity was
sufficiently satisfied, does not prevent it from changing its view
after a more thorough observation and investigation, not only because
it is characteristic of the wise to change tkeir opinion, but also
because it reserved to itself such change of opinion. It would have
been a clear demonstration of poor judgment if, after having been
convinced otherwise, it had persisted in its error.

The appellants deny that the Public Service Commission has the
power to base its decision relative to the necessity or lack of
necessity of more taxicabs for the convenience of the public in the
City of Manila upon the result of its observations and investigations
of the operation of taxicabs.

In the case of State ex rel. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. vs.
Public Service Commission (95 Wash., 376; 163 Pac, 1143), the Supreme
Court of the State of Washington in a decision of March 24, 1917, laid
down the following doctrine which was affirmed in the case of State ex
rel. Northern Pac. Ry. Co. vs. Public Service Commission (166 Pac, 793):

“The Public Service Commission as an administrative
and regulative body is not bound to acquire its information concerning
all matters involved in a proceeding “before it entirely from the
evidence of witnesses or other evidence produced before it, but may
take into consideration the results of its general investigations,
general information upon a given subject within its powers, and all
matters which affect the matter and concerning which it” must determine
the facts.”

According to the above cited American doctrine, the Public Service
Commission, the functions of which are administrative and regulative in
addition to being quasijudicial, did not exceed its authority in basing
its decision upon the result of its own observation and investigation,
in connection with the evidence presented at the hearing. Inasmuch as
this court is not required to examine the evidence de novo or
to determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of the
evidence justifies the order issued by the commission, in accordance
with the doctrine laid down in the case of San Miguel Brewery vs.
Lapid, supra; inasmuch as said commission has based its decision upon
the result of its own observation and investigation and upon the
evidence presented at the hearing; inasmuch as this court cannot
substitute its own discretion for that of said commission; and it
appearing that the evidence reasonably supports said decision, there i«
no reason to reverse it. (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Aero Taxicab
Co. vs. Danon, 58 Phil., 75; Manila Electric Co. vs. Balagtas, 58 Phil., 429.)

In addition to the general considerations above stated, there is
the special consideration that the herein applicants-appellees, the N.
& B. Stables Co., Inc., and Domingo Vita! are garage operators with
certificates of public convenience, the former wishing to operate, in
addition to its garage, taxicabs principally for the use of its patrons
and later for public service, and the latter to substitute 20 of his
garage touring cars by closed taxicabs also for the convenience of his
patrons who prefer to use the latter means of transportation, being a
more economical service for short trips. A similar substitution has
been granted to the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., Fausto Barredo,
Aero Taxicab Co., Inc., and finally to Julio Danon.

As regards the question of whether or not the Public Service
Commission erred in not having given the appellants the opportunity to
increase their equipment before admitting new companies, said
appellants admit having filed applications praying for authority to
increase their respective equipment but later, when the applications in
these cases were set for hearing, they withdrew said applications
alleging that the public convenience did not demand such increase.
However, when the commission approved the applications in the cases
under consideration and declared that there was need for a greater
number of such vehicles, said appellants again filed their applications
for an increase of equipment, the total increase thereof sought by them
amounting to 380 cars. Therefore the appellants not only had the
opportunity to request permission to increase their equipment but also
actually applied for it but later withdrew their applications. Inasmuch
as the appellants, through their own voluntary desistance, had deprived
the commission of its jurisdiction to pass upon their applications for
an increase of equipment jointly with the applications under
consideration, they cannot now charge that said commission has not
given them said opportunity before issuing certificates of public
convenience to the new applicants.

For the foregoing considerations, this court is of the opinion and
so holds: (1) That the Public Service Commission in the exercise of its
quasi-judicial and administrative functions has the power to take into
consideration the result of its own observation and investigation of
the matter submitted to it for consideration and decision, in
connection with other evidence presented at the hearing of a case; and
(2) that a transportation company which fifes an application to
increase its equipment and later withdraws it pending the hearing of
other applications of similar companies to engage in the same business,
has no right to complain of not having been given the opportunity to
increase its equipment before the authorization of said new companies.

Wherefore, not finding any error in the appealed decision, it is affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Street, Abad Santos, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

HULL, J.:

I concur in the result.

VICKERS, J.:

I concur in the result.

---

MALCOLM, J., concurring:

As the Public Service Commissioner very properly observed, the
petitions of the N. & B. Stables Co., and Domingo Vital present
features not found in the other cases. These two applicants are now
operating garages, and according to the evidence the demands of their
clientele require the placing and operation of taxicabs with their
garage services. Such a reason is proper, while in addition it appears
that the purpose back of the petitions is to retire cars from the
garage business and substitute them with taxicabs. In other cases, the
Public Service Commission and this court have authorized garages to
amplify their service by putting into operation taxicabs or by
substituting taxicabs for garage cars, and there is no reason why the
same principle should not be given application here. For these reasons,
I am fully convinced that the Public Service Commission was right in
approving the applications of the N. & B. Stables Co., and Domingo
Vital.

---

BUTTE and GODDARD, JJ., dissenting:

The grounds of our dissent in these cases are the same as set out
in the dissenting opinion in cases G. R. Nos. 41434 to 41442, 41444 to
41447 and 41449.