[ G. R. No. 40319. March 27, 1934 ] 59 Phil. 787
[ G. R. No. 40319. March 27, 1934 ]
ESMERALDA VESNAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
HULL, J.: E. Vesnan applied to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience with authority to operate two hundred small taxicabs in the City of Manila and its suburbs.
After due hearing, the Public Service Commission granted a certificate authorizing nine small taxicabs but refused authority to place in operation two hundred. From the orders of the Public Service Commission refusing to grant the authority for the two hundred cars, applicant brings this appeal.
The appellees are existing taxicab operators in the City of Manila who opposed any grant to applicant. In a companion case promulgated this date, G. R. No. 40317,[1] we discussed the right of applicant to have the certificate for the operation of nine cars.
On the whole record we find no abuse of authority in the commission’s denying her application for two hundred cars. There is, however, a middle ground that has given us considerable concern. Originally appellant had a provisional permit for the operation of fifty-five midget taxicabs. With the knowledge and approval of the then members of the Public Service Commission, she purchased and ordered from over seas twenty small cars of a new type. As fast as they arrived appellant placed the cars in service, and at the time that this court acted on the question of the validity of the provisional permits she had nine cars in operation. Shortly thereafter the eleven other cars arrived, which she could not place in operation under her provisional permit due to the limitations which this court placed upon the holder of the permit in that decision. The cars have been in storage awaiting the result of these proceedings.
The number of cars that an operator should operate is obviously one that pertains especially to the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission; but as the cars were actually purchased with the knowledge and consent of the then Public Service Commission, were bought in good faith, and could be used in supplying a demand by the public for transportation, that has been demonstrated to exist, we believe under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case that we are justified in modifying the orders of the Public Service Commission to the extent that appellant be permitted to operate the twenty taxicabs which she hasalready purchased.
As thus modified the orders of the Public Service Commission are affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.