LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. M. RUIZ HIGHWAY TRANSIT, INC., RESPONDENT.

Respondent M. Ruiz Highway Transit, Inc. has filed a motion to
reconsider the decision of this Court promulgated on November 28, 3
959, in which decision we reversed that of the Public Service
Commission in the above-entitled cases and denied the application of
the respondent for authority to operate for public service six auto
trucks on the following lines: Santa Maria (Laguna-San Pablo City via
Pila, 2 trucks, Lumban (Laguna)-Manila, Nagcarlan (Laguna)-Manila,
Majayjay (Laguna)-Manila and Santa Cruz (Laguna)-Majayjay (Laguna), 1
truck each. The grounds stated in the motion for reconsideration are as
follows: that in 1946 respondent-movant was authorized to operate auto
trucks for the transportation of passengers and freight from Laguna to
Manila and back, and that in the year 1950 the certificate of public
convenience was converted into a franchise; that by reason of shortage
of tires and spare parts and the failure to obtain necessary dollar
allocations to purchase the same abroad, respondent-movant was not able
to maintain full operational strength, for which reason the Commission
reduced the grant of the original franchise in 1946 population and
business have increased in the areas where the respondent-movant
operated its buses; that the findings of fact of the Public Service
Commission as to public necessity are not interferred with by this
Court and the latter is not authorized to substitute its discretion or
judgment insofar as the grant of certificates of public convenience and
that the Court, therefore, diverted from this ruling and policy in
reversing the grant of the petition of the respondent-movant. Other
grounds were alleged but they need not be herein restated. The
petitioner Laguna Tayabas Bus Company opposed the motion for
reconsideration, alleging that this Court has reviewed evidence in
various cases, the most important of which are: Batangas Transportation
Co. et al., vs. Biñan Transportation Co. and Jose Silva, 99 Phil., 918; Padua vs. Ocampo, et al., G. R. No. L-7589, July 80, 1955; Bachrach Motor Co., etc. vs.
Hipolito, G. R. No. L-9278, April 26, 1957; that we did not make any
mistake in relying on the reports of checkers stationed by the
Commission at major points to determine the passengers aboard the
trucks operating along the lines covered by the application; that at
the hearing the reports of checkers had not been impugned, etc. The
respondent-movant has also filed a reply, so the motion in question is
now before us for final consideration and decision.

It is true that in considering the evidence submitted before the
Public Service Commission reliance was placed by us mainly on the
reports of checkers. So that if the evidences alone submitted by
respondent-movant on one side and the petitioner on the other are
considered, it seems we are fully justified in concluding that the
evidence submitted by petitioner is credible and convincing, because it
cannot be denied that the actual counting of passengers aboard
passenger trucks is indeed absolutely more reliable than impressions of
some casual passengers or of bystanders as to the number of passengers
aboard the buses. There is one material point, however, which we have
overlooked and which we believe should be considered in relation with
the evidence submitted by respondent-movant in support of its
application. Said evidence is the fact that respondent had been granted
a franchise to operate 20 passenger buses and two additional auto
trucks in a decision of the Public Service Commission dated August 17,
1950, and said certificate of public convenience was to be valid for a
period of 25 years from the date of the decision. In the above decision
the Public Service Commission had found as a fact that the operation
and maintenance of 22 passenger buses specified in the certificate of
public convenience was of public need and that the convenience of the
public then needed the operation of said 22 units. If as early as 1950,
the Public Service Commission had already found public necessity for
the operation by respondent-movant of 22 buses, it stands to reason
that when it presented its petition in the above entitled cases and
when the Public Service Commission rendered decision in said cases on
January 5, 1657, or some seven years after the grant of the original
certificate of public convenience, such need for the operation of said
trucks which were found to exist as early as 1950, continued to exist,
there being no evidence to the contrary and there being positive
evidence submitted by the respondent-movant that there has been
increase in population and increase in number of passengers along the
lines for which the certificate was issued by the Public Service
Commission. In short, since a public necessity existed in 1950, such
public necessity continued, if it did not increase, in 1957, in view of
the increase in population and the number of passengers along the lines
covered by the certificate.

We have taken into account the fact that in various decisions of the
Public Service Commission, dated August 13, 1951, August 29, 1953,
August 20, 1954, June 29, 1955, the respondent-movant had committed
violations of the certificate of public convenience by irregular
service and that some of the lines being operated had been cancelled.
The irregular operation of the lines by the respondent-movant, however,
appear to have been due to difficulties in getting the necessary tires
and spare parts for the use of its buses. In none of the orders of the
Commission finding the respondent-movant guilty of irregular service
nor in that cancelling the operation of some of its lines, is it
indicated that the reason for the irregularity of service or the
cancellation of some lines is the absence or insufficiency of
passengers along the lines.

Considering the respondent-movant had an original franchise for the
operation of 20 trucks as early as 1950 and that she has proved that
there has been an increase in population and an increase in passengers
along the lines applied for, we are constrained to reverse our previous
stand. We declare that the evidence submitted before the Public Service
Commission is sufficient to sustain the finding of said Commission that
there is public necessity for the operation of the revived lines
granted in the decision of the Public Service Commission subject of the
present petition for review. We have again gone over the reports of the
checkers which we have previously studied and we know that while the
buses are not overloaded at the time of the inspection of the buses,
there are instances where they had 51 passengers, 47 passengers, 42
passengers, 50 passengers, 40 passengers, etc. which shows that the
finding of the Public Service Commission that there was need, is not
without foundation. If the buses would carry ordinarily some 15 to 20
passengers it might be said that there is no need for additional buses,
but when they have from 40 to 50 passengers, most likely some more
buses are needed for the convenience of the public.

Wherefore, our decision above mentioned is hereby reconsidered and
set aside, and one is hereby entered declaring that upon the
reexamination of the evidence, both of the original petitioner M. Ruiz
Highway Transit, Inc. and the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, the decision
of the Public Service Commission subject of review is justified by the
evidence on record.

The original decisions of the Public Service Commission subject of
the petition for review are, therefore, affirmed, without costs.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.