Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c34bb?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION GO. v. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO.](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c34bb?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c34bb}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights
106 Phil. 837

[ G. R. No. L-13080, December 29, 1959 ]

PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION GO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:

Petition for review filed by the oppositor-petitioner Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc., against the decision of the Public Service Commission in its Case No. 96322, ordering  the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience to the respondent  Times Transportation  Co., Inc. to operate a TPU  (auto-trucks)  service on the  following lines:
Vigan, Ilocos Sur Bolinao,  Pangasinan  (3 units)
Vigan, Ilocos Sur Dagupan City (2 units)
Vigan, Ilocos Sur Baguio City  (1 unit).
Petitioner assails the decision on two  grounds, namely:

(a) that  the evidence  presented is not sufficient to reasonably support a grant of the certificate; and  (b)  that such questioned action of the Commission would only lead  to ruinous competition among authorized operators.

The evidence of record  establishes fully the need for more transportation services on the lines sought to be established by the respondent Times Transportation Co., Inc., a domestic corporation wholly owned by citizens  of the Philippines.  It is disclosed that, due to the fast expansion of commerce and  industry in and around the area applied for, there  has been  increasing demand from the riding public for more and better transportation facilities.  Existing  operators admit there is no direct and continuous service from Vigan to Dagupan  City or from  Vigan to Bolinao, and with respect to the Vigan-Baguio City route, that only the Manila  Railroad  Company renders such service.  While the mere  absence of a direct  or non-transfer service would not necessarily warrant an authorization for more or additional services, such absence, when coupled with an aggravating volume of traffic conditions along the lines proposed  to  be served, may justify the authorization.  In the routes, applied for, witnesses declared that the means of transportation now available are inadequate to cope with the movement of passengers and the  latter usually encounter  many difficulties, inconveniences and delays before they are able to secure proper accommodations.

Petitioner would want us to examine and weigh the evidence anew  and arrive at conclusions  different from the Commission's.  This we may  not do, except in those instances where "it clearly appears that  there was no competent evidence before it to support reasonably its decision" (Espiritu vs. Los Bañ os, G.  R.  No. L-7121, July 30, 1955, cited and quoted in  Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. et al. vs. Hipolito, G.  R.  No. L-9278, April 21,  1957), which is not true in this  case.

Petitioner cites 1953  and 1956  decisions of the Public Service Commission  denying previous applications along the same proposed lines (not for direct service), but those were based on circumstances peculiarly their own.  Considering that the old  applications were filed years before and that it appears that the traffic conditions have actually changed, we cannot  attach  much  significance to  these denials.

That the grant of the certificate in question would only lead to ruinous competition appears to be mere speculation, not supported by the evidence of record.

Wherefore, the decision under review is hereby affirmed.  Costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera,  and Gutierrez  David,  JJ., concur.

tags