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/c34cd?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. JUAN V. ALDEA](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c34cd?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c34cd}
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. 866

[ G. R. No. L-13433, December 29, 1959 ]

FORTUNATO F. HALILI, PETITIONER, VS. JUAN V. ALDEA, RESPONDENT.

D E C I S I O N

LABRADOR, J.:

Petition for  the review of a decision of the Public Service Commission  awarding respondent a certificate of public convenience to operate four (4) jeepneys with TPU plates between Novaliches (Quezon City) and Blumentritt (Manila), and vice-versa.

The decision was based on the testimony of the applicant- respondent, and  the petitions of school teachers in Novaliches  and of residents therein, that there is an acute inadequacy of  facilities resulting from a  tremendous  increase in population occasioned in part by the establishment of new enterprises  and industrial  establishments in the areas  traversed  by the lines.  The petitioner submitted, in support of his opposition to the  granting  of the  certificate, reports of checkers stationed  along the route to the effect that the buses of the petitioner are not over-crowded.

Petitioner  claims in this Court  that  the  reports of the Public Service  Commission checkers  should be  entitled to greater credit than the testimony of  applicant and the petitions of residents along the line.   It  is true that in two  instances we have held that reports of checkers are more reliable and convincing evidence of the number of passengers aboard, buses than the testimony of observers and  riders. (See L.T.B. vs. M. Ruiz  Highway Transit, Inc., G. R. No. L-11933 34,  Nov. 28, 1959; B.T.Co. vs. Reyes, 104 Phil., 783; 55 Off. Gaz. [48],  10070).   But in the above-cited cases, the checkers boarded the buses and made actual count of passengers, while in the case at bar they did not do so but merely observed the buses that passed by.  So their reports were of the weight of mere observers.  Furthermore,  we take judicial notice of the fact that  of late  there has been a movement of population from the crowded districts of Manila to subdivisions of the People's Homesite  and Housing  Corporation and other suburban places.  We also take judicial notice of the fact that jeepneys offer more rapid transportation to teachers, students and employees, who are in a hurry to reach their classes and offices and their homes during the rush hours of the morning and of the afternoon, than slow-moving buses that must  make frequent stops to get passengers.

We, therefore, hold that the finding of the Public Service Commission that the service rendered by petitioner's buses is inadequate, is supported by the preponderance of the evidence,  We may not reverse said finding because the lack of evidence as required by law (Sec. 35, Public Service Act), does not appear  evident.  The decision  is  hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.  So ordered.

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

tags