[ G. R. No. 41471. September 15, 1934 ] 60 Phil. 617
[ G. R. No. 41471. September 15, 1934 ]
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
MALCOLM, J.:
The petitioner and appellant in this case complains that the Public Service Commission erred in granting to the Manila Railroad Company a certificate of public convenience to invade the regular route adequately and efficiently served by the Pangasinan Transportation Company.
The Pangasinan Transportation Company operates an autobus service in the Province of Pangasinan and other provinces. The Manila Railroad Company operates the Benguet Auto Line from Baguio by way of the Kennon Road to Sison. The railroad now desires to extend its auto line from Sison to Binalonan via Pozorrubio in the Province of Pangasinan. If this be permitted it will be a competitor of the busses of the Pangasinan Transportation Company.
The basic inquiry in this as in other public service commission cases is whether or not it clearly appears that there was no evidence before the commission to support reasonably its order. Our mature judgment is that the findings of fact made by the commission do not meet this test.
In one class of cases it has oft been emphasized, and properly, that the convenience of the public must be taken into account and is a prime criterion. In another class of cases it has as appropriately been emphasized that the investments made by public service operators must be protected rather than destroyed. Here we have the two principles meeting in collision. It is our desire at once to afford all reasonable facilities to the public and to afford all reasonable safeguards for capital invested in the transportation business.
On the one hand it is shown that there are a few passengers whose convenience would be better served if the Manila Railroad Company was permitted to extend its buss service from Sison to Binalonan. However, their convenience is more fancied than real, for the busses of the Pangasinan Transportation Company and the Manila Railroad Company meet at Sison and if there is any difference in the hour of meeting this could readily be arranged. On the other side, it is disclosed that while busses of the Pangasinan Transportation Company have a capacity for thirtytwo pay passengers, they are only carrying an average load of six passengers on these trips. It has further been established that from June, 1932, to May, 1933, the Pangasinan Transportation Company lost f*2,733.29 on this line alone. Under these conditions, can it be said that public necessity is more compelling than what amounts to ruinous competition?
The true effect of granting the petition of the Manila Railroad Company would be to force the Pangasinan Transportation Company out of the Sison-Pozorrubio-Binalonan territory. Moreover, if the railroad company could extend its auto line to Binalonan, it requires no vast amount of imagination to visualize the company extending its line to the next municipality and so on indefinitely, to the great disadvantage of other operators and with the result that they would be deprived of substantial revenue. With all due respect to the Public Service Commission which we are the first to uphold when its decisions can be justified, we are unable to put the stamp of our approval on the principle it has invoked and sanctioned in this case.
Agreeable to the foregoing, the assigned errors will be sustained, and the decision set aside, with the costs of both instances to be paid by the respondent and appellee.
Street, Villa-Real, Hull, Vickers, Butte, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.