[ G.R. Nos. L-4100 and L-4102. May 15, 1952 ] 91 Phil. 275
[ G.R. Nos. L-4100 and L-4102. May 15, 1952 ]
INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY, INC., OPPOSITOR AND APPELLANT, VS. LUIS CLARETE, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
The applicant-appellee, Luis Clarete, has been a TPU auto-truck operator of five units in several lines in the provinces of Occidental Misamis and Zamboanga under emergency certificates and temporary authority since September 9, 1946. In cases Nos. 33350 and 42738 of the Public Service Commission, the appellee applied for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience covering not only his actual authorized operations but also increased services over certain lines and the extension of his services to the towns of Baliangao and Labo vith the use of a total of ten units, or an additional five auto-trucks. The application was opposed by the appellant, Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc., a duly authorized auto-truck operator in the Provinces of Occidental Misamis and Zamboanga. The opposition is grounded on the allegations that the proposed service applied for by the appellee is unnecessary, because appellant’s actual operations are adequate to meet the present travelling needs; that appellee’s proposed service would constitute a vuinous competition; that the appellee is not capable of rendering efficient and satisfactory service. After hearing, the Public Service Commission, in a joint decision, granted the certificate of public convenience applied for by the appellee with the use however of only eight units, from which decision the oppositor, Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. has appealed by way of a petition for review. Appellant’s proposition is that the present auto-truck services in the provinces of Zamboanga and Occidental Misamls, especially those of appellant, are sufficient to meet the people’s travelling needs. Appellee’s evidence tends to show that the travelling public cannot often be accommodated by the present auto-truck operators, whereas the evidence of appellant suggests that most, of the time the auto-trucks operating on the present lines are not filled up to capacity and, as a matter of fact, the appellant suffered a loss of about P100,000 in 1949 due to lack of passengers. The matter obviously involves a question of fact, in which the Public Service Commission has ruled in favor of the appellee. We are not of course authorized to set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission, unless there is no clear evidence before the Commission to support reasonably such decision, (Section 35, Act 146.) We cannot say that there was no evidence, because, in addition to the oral evidence presented by the appellee to support his contention that more auto-truck services are necessary to cope with the increasing travelling needs in Occidental Misamis and Zamboanga, there are exhibits to the effect that the municipal councils and municipal mayors of several municipalities of Occidental Misamis, and the provincial board of said province had endorsed favorably all applications for increase of equipment of pre-war and post-war public service operators. The Public Service Commission has attributed appellants losses allegedly suffered by it to other causes than lack of passengers. This may not be entirely without foundation, since the evidence submitted by the appellee and given credit by the Commission, tends to show that many passengers cannot be accommodated by the present truck services. It is immaterial that the great bulk of passengers show up on Sundays, holidays and market days, because the needs of the public travelling on said occasions cannot be ignored in determining the extent to which the present operators may increase their services. To adopt the theory of the appellant, namely, that the criterion should be the number of passengers that travel during ordinary days, would be, in effect, to curtail the privilege of those who want to travel on Sundays, holidays and market days. This Court has already held that “while it is the duty of the government as far as possible to protect public utility operatocs against unfair and unjustified competition, it is nevertheless obvious that public convenience must have the first consideration.” (Raymundo Transportation Co. vs. Perez, 56 Phil., 274.) The appellant attempted to show that the appellee is inefficient or rendering inefficient service, in view of the fact that the latter is the manager, mechanic, carpenter and painter of his business. As correctly observed by the appellee, he cannot be expected to employ the services of the same size of personnel employed by the appellant in its business comprising around 86 units. The fact that the appellee can afford to put up additional units, is an indication enough to show that he can handle his business profitably and efficiently. Of course, there is evidence on both sides to the effect that tracks owned as well by the appellee as by the appellant at times run out of commission, but this is a contingency naturally to arise in a normal transportation business. The appellant also claims that at present the drivers of competing operators try to overtake each other in the desire to pick up passengers. This complaint is likely to be made even without the additional services to be put up by the appellee. At any rate, the certificate of public convenience to be issued in favor of the appellee is subject to the express condition that “it is absolutely forbidden for the applicant’s auto-trucks to race with other TPU trucks on the road or to pass or try to pass them for the purpose of picking passengers ahead.” The appellant insists that, as an older operator, it should enjoy preference in the matter of adding new auto-trucks required on the old and new lines. The appellant, however, had not volunteered to apply for additional units and had thought of claiming said right only after the appellee, aware of the increasing travelling needs of the people, filed an application for the issuance of the certificate in question. Appellant’s attitude is unfair both to the public and to other operators. Wherefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission is hereby affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the appellant. Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.