JARO EXPRESS CO., INC., AND PEDRO TELLERIA, PETITIONERS, VS.CARLOS LOPEZ, RESPONDENT.

The
question to be determined in this case is whether or not the judgment
rendered in case No. 49063 of the Public Service Commission is in
accordance with law. Petitioners contend that it is not, for, as they
allege in their brief, in granting respondent’s application,

“I.
The commission erred in approving the application when it clearly
appears that there was no evidence before it to support reasonably said
decision;

“II. The commission erred in not holding that public convenience does not require the approval of the application; and

“III. The commission erred in denying the motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners.”

The salient facts in the record may be briefly stated as follows:

Carlos Lopez, respondent herein, applied for permission to engage in
the business of land transportation in the City of Iloilo and in the
neighboring towns like La Paz, Jaro, Pavia, Santa Barbara, Arevalo, and
Oton, by means of thirty cars each having a capacity of four
passengers, which are commonly known as “Taxicabs, Willis 77”. The
petitioners Jaro Express Co., Inc., and Pedro Telleria who have also
been engaged in the same business, the former operating twenty-eight
cars, and the latter twenty-six, opposed his application. The Public
Service Commission, after hearing all the witnesses and receiving the
evidence which the parties saw fit to submit, decided the case in favor
of the applicant, but under the conditions appearing in its decision.
It granted the application because, in its opinion, the evidence
adduced by the applicant consisting of the latter’s own testimony and
that of his witnesses Bartolome Puzon, an engineer of the Bureau of
Public Works, Dr. Ramon B. Ferrer, health inspector of Iloilo, and
Teodorico Hernando, assistant chief of the marine division of Iloilo,
and of the report and testimony of the chief inspector of the Public
Service Commission, Jose F. Arcillas, showed that the public
convenience and necessity demanded a more adequate service commensurate
with the number of inhabitants of the City of Iloilo and the
neighboring towns, namely 148,229, and with the exigencies of the times
and of progress. It gave neither weight nor importance to the evidence
adduced by petitioners consisting of the testimony of their witnesses
Feliciano Fajardo, Eladio Pingoy, Tereso Britanio, Jose Anabo, Raymundo
J. Llandere, Jose Jinigaon, Ana Gonzalez, Elpidio Magbanua, and twelve
others, (1) because from the report and testimony of the said chief
inspector Arcillas, a disinterested person who, by order of the Public
Service Commission, went to the scene and remained there for several
days in order to know de visu, with the assistance of other
inspectors, the situation and the prevailing conditions in which public
services for transportation by autotrucks and taxicabs operated, and
from the other evidence submitted to him, it appeared that petitioners’
cars which were not more than fifty-four and the only ones of their
kind operating in the entire territory, used to carry more passengers
than their capacity permitted for the reason that their number was not
sufficient to meet the public need, there being, as above stated, not
less than 148,229 inhabitants; (2) because the taxicabs of petitioners,
instead of going around in the streets so as to be available to those
who might need them, remained waiting for calls or orders in their
garages erected at various points within the territory where they could
operate; and (3) because in the opinion of the commission, there is
field enough for more than two transportation concerns of the size of
those which petitioners have in the territory aforementioned.

The law allows the modification or reversal of a judgment of the Public
Service Commission only in the cases in which it clearly appears that
the same is not reasonably supported by the evidence, or is contrary to
law, or has been rendered without any authority or jurisdiction (sec.
35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146). It is a fact, however, that none of
these is present in the case now before us. The commission considering
the preponderance of the evidence, certainly not by reason of its
amount or quantity, but on account of its quality, importance and
weight, decided the case in the manner already pointed out. We find no
reason for altering this conclusion because aside from the fact that it
is just, we are not authorized to interfere with the prudent and
correct exercise of a power conferred upon it, nor are we allowed to
substitute its judgment with our own by now declaring that no need
exists for more taxicabs in a city or territory of 148,229 souls where
the activity in its port and airfield is such that, as we are made to
understand from the evidence, no less than 5,000 sojourners enter and
leave it every month, and where the commission upon which the law
confers the power to grant a certificate of public convenience upon its
finding that the interest and convenience of the public require it (sec
16 of Commonwealth Act No. 146), holds, and not without basis,
precisely the contrary (San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Manila Electric Company vs. Mateo, G. R. Nos. 45455 and 45456, July 21, 1938).

In view of all the foregoing, we hold that petitioners’ petition is
without merit; that the errors attributed to the Public Service
Commission do not exist; and that the decision of said commission from
which they appealed should be, as it is hereby, affirmed in all its
parts, with costs against petitioners. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.