M. P. TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

The Manila Railroad Company, operating an
autotruck, garage and taxicab service in the City of Baguio and its
suburbs, applied to the Public Service Commission for authority to
operate another service of auto-calesas within the same territory, particularly between said city and the mining districts.

The application was opposed by the M. P. Transportation Co., Inc.,
another operator of autotrucks for passenger and freight service, with
fixed lines in the Mountain Province and the Province of La Union. The
grounds of the opposition were: That the applicant is not authorized
under its franchise to operate and engage in the auto-calesa
business and service; that the public necessity and convenience do not
demand the establishment of the proposed new service; that, unlike
Manila, the problem of substituting horsedrawn by other motor vehicles
does not exist in the City of Baguio and its suburbs, and that the
granting of the certificate prayed for would result in a ruinous
competition between it and the applicant.

After hearing, the commission granted the applicant a certificate
of public convenience to operate ten (10) units of three or
four-wheeled auto-calesas with chassis and bodies1 similar to
those used in the City of Manila, and a capacity of five (5) passengers
including the driver, subject to the rate and other ordinary
regulations stated in the decision. The oppositor appealed.

The commission declared that the necessity and convenience of the
inhabitants of the City of Baguio and its suburbs would be better
served by the auto-calesa
service, basing its opinion mainly on the testimony of Casiano Rivera,
superintendent of the Benguet Auto Line, who testified, in general
terms, that the City of Baguio actually has about 10,000 inhabitants;
that during the summer months they number approximately 30,000; that
the laborers of the mining districts and the merchants residing
thereabouts often come to the city and need this kind of cheap
transportation, and that many of them cannot afford to pay the rates
charged by other services, which is not less than fifty centavos
(P0.50) a trip, in the case of garage cars.

Said witness, however, failed to mention the fact that at present
the applicant is already operating in the City of Baguio and its
suburbs an efficient service of midget taxicabs the rate of which is
the usual ten and five centavos (P0.10 and 0.05).

Considering all the evidence which we have carefully examined, we
hold that the same has not sufficiently or reasonably established the
fact that the proposed auto-calesa service will promote
public convenience and necessity or redound to the benefit of the
inhabitants of said locality. Actually there is already in the same
territory an efficient garage car, autotruck and midget taxicab
service, the operators of which charge relatively low and very
reasonable rates and we are at a loss to understand how the alleged
public convenience and necessity in favor of the new service sought to
be established can exist under such circumstance. Before this new
service is authorized, we believe that the rule already laid down in
other similar cases, requiring the present operators to recondition and
improve their service by increasing their equipment should the
necessity and convenience of the inhabitants so demand, should be
enforced.

In view of the reduced number of the inhabitants of the territory
and the prospects and possibilities of their business the court is of
the opinion that the operation of the proposed auto-calesa service will create between the present operators a ruinous competition which must be avoided.

The appellant is now rendering an efficient autotruck service
making trips between the City of Baguio and the mining districts, where
there are many laborers, and the neighborhood where many merchants
reside, and to maintain this service it is compelled to furnish
material and laborers for the upkeep and repair of the roads leading to
the mining districts. The applicant has not been rendering this aid and
it seems clear that for such service the appellant is entitled in this
particular case to have its interest protected and secured.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and it is held
that the applicant is not entitled to the service applied for, with the
costs of this instance against it. So ordered.

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