[ G.R. Nos. L-12911-12 and L-13073-74. February 29, 1960 ] 107 Phil. 167
[ G.R. Nos. L-12911-12 and L-13073-74. February 29, 1960 ]
PAZ MARQUEZ BENITEZ, PETITIONER, VS. AMADOR D. SANTOS, RESPONDENT. MABAIT C. LOPEZ, PETITIONER, VS. AMADOR D. SANTOS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
Prior to the last war, Nicolas F. Concepcion was granted a certificate of public convenience to establish, operate and maintain a taxicab service composed of 80 units. On account of the failure of Nicolas F. Concepcion to complete the registration of 80 units despite many extensions given to him, the Public Service Commission, in its order of April 13, 1949 in Case No. 1470, amended his certificate by reducing the number of taxicabs which he could operate to 59 units. Subsequently, Nicolas F. Concepcion sold his certificate to Francisco Benitez, Jr. The sale included the right to operate the 59 units. The Public Service Commission, however, approved the sale for only 27 units, because of the inability of Nicolas F. Concepcion to register 32 of the 59 units authorized in his certificate, as amended. The sale having been approved for 27 units only, several applicants, namely: Paz M. Benitez, Mabait C. Lopez and Amador Santos, separately sought authority to operate the 32 taxicabs units.
It is well to state at this point that these 32 units form part of the total number of taxicabs which the Public Service Commission has already found and declared necessary for operation in the City of Manila and suburbs, and the only question presented before the Commission was to whom of the applicants should the authority to operate the aforesaid 32 taxicabs units be awarded.
The records discloses that Paz M. Benitez filed her applications first, followed by Mabait C. Lopez, daughter of Nicolas F. Concepcion, about two months later, and then by Amador Santos about one year and five months afterwards. Each of the applicants has adduced evidence to establish their financial capacity to purchase and operate.
After going over the evidence, the Public Service Commission awarded the certificate of public convenience to operate the 32 taxicab units to Amador Santos because in its opinion he is the best qualified, considering that Santos is presently a taxicab operator of 87 units of the Mercedez-Benz Bantam type, that he has the experience and know-how in the operation of the taxicab business, and that he has available trained mechanics, drivers, personnel, tools, shop and equipment that would insure regular, continuous and dependable service.
Both applicants, Paz M. Benitez and Mabait C. Lopez have separately filed a petition for review of the decision of the Public Service Commission, which we jointly resolve in this decision.
While it may be true that respondent Santos already has experience in operating a taxicab business and owns a repair and maintenance shop, these considerations alone do not shift the preference in his favor. Experience and availability of garage facilities, although important, are not decisive in the instant case. Evidently, these two factors cannot be expected of new applicants to this business enterprise. The latter will acquire them when they are actually given an opportunity to do so. Moreover, the other two applicants are not entirely without substantial experience in this particular kind of business. Petitioner Paz M. Benitez used to be a director and part owner of a taxicab company and petitioner Lopez gained her experience while employed in her father’s taxicab business prior to the war.
The fact that prominently stands out is that all of the applicants have proven their financial capacity to operate the 32 taxicab units. And since petitioner Paz M. Benitez was the first applicant, we believe and so hold, that she should be awarded the certificate of public convenience to operate them. This is in line with the ruling laid down in Batangas Transportation Co. and Eliseo Silva vs. Orlanes and Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 745, wherein we held:
“Priority in the filing of the application for a certificate of public convenience is, other conditions being equal, an important factor in determining the rights of the public service companies.”
The further fact that respondent Santos already owns 87 taxicab units which he presently operates militates against his application, because giving the award to him would likely create a monopoly in his particular line of business. A monopolistic trend with its concomitant evils can only serve to prejudice public interest, stifling as it does enthusiasm and initiative on the part of those eager to learn. Prior experience, while itself useful, cannot create a vested right which would endanger the national economy.
Indeed, the unjustified and irregular grant of preference to an applicant who filed a petition one and a half years later than another, would obviously breed in the public’s mind, a suspicion that favoritism, with all its sinister complications, play an important role in the award of public utility benefits. To put a premium on tardiness would be to encourage opportunities for underhand transactions that can only result in a miscarriage of justice.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. The Public Service Commission is hereby ordered to award the grant of public utility operation in the instant case to first applicant, Paz M. Benitez. So ordered without pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.