September 1936 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > September 1936 Decisions >
G.R. No. 44523 September 30, 1936 - ALEOSAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.
063 Phil 523:
063 Phil 523:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 44523. September 30, 1936.]
ALEOSAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PANAY AUTOBUS CO., and CAPIZ MOTOR BUS CO., INC., Respondents.
Salvador Y. Cabaluna for Petitioner.
Roman A. Cruz for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. PUBLIC SERVICE; JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT AS TO DECISIONS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. — It is already a settled doctrine of this court, interpreting section 35 of the Public Service Act, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3316, that this court has jurisdiction to review, modify and set aside decisions and orders of the Public Service Commission only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to reasonably support such decisions and orders, or when the case is without the jurisdiction of the commission. (Manila Electric Co. v. Balagtas, 58 Phil., 429; Ampil v. Public Service Commission, 59 Phil., 556; Calabia v. Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 659.)
2. ID.; ID. — It is likewise an already settled doctrine of this court not to modify said conclusions, which we find to be correct and we adopt for purposes of this decision. (Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal, 44 Phil., 363; Mejica v. Public Utility Commission, 49 Phil., 774; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Acro Taxicab Co. v. Danon, 58 Phil., 75.)
2. ID.; ID. — It is likewise an already settled doctrine of this court not to modify said conclusions, which we find to be correct and we adopt for purposes of this decision. (Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal, 44 Phil., 363; Mejica v. Public Utility Commission, 49 Phil., 774; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Acro Taxicab Co. v. Danon, 58 Phil., 75.)
D E C I S I O N
VILLA-REAL, J.:
This is a petition filed by the Aleosan Transportation Co., Inc., to review the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission on August 31, 1935, denying the application for a permit to increase its services on its present lines Iloilo-Leon via San Miguel, Oton or Tigmauan; Iloilo-Alimodian via San Miguel and Oton, and to extend them on the lines Iloilo-San Jose (Antique); San Jose-Capiz via Tibiao and Ibajay; Iloilo-Calinog via Zarraga or Janiway; Iloilo-Dumangas via Zarraga or Janiway; Iloilo-Estancia via Zarraga; Iloilo-Igbaras; Iloilo-Tubuñgan; Iloilo-Maasin; Iloilo-Lambunao; and Capiz- Estancia, all of the Island of Panay, with a thirty-minute time schedule from 5:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., daily, by increasing the number of trips to an interval of ten minutes if necessary.
In support of its petition, the petitioner assigns five alleged errors as committed by the respondent Public Service Commission in its decision in question, which will be discussed in the course of this decision.
The Public Service Commission, in denying said application stated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Commission is not convinced from the evidence submitted that the increased services applied for by the applicant on his present lines Iloilo-Leon and Iloilo-alimodian are necessary.
"The applicant claims that there is a great need for transportation facilities for carrying freight in the territory applied for as a result of the refusal of the Panay Autobus Co. to transport heavy freight in their trucks. The evidence submitted shows, however, that freight is not refused to be transported by the Panay Autobus Company, there being space in the trucks of said company specially reserved for freight of its passengers. If it is the applicant’s intention to operate an auto-truck service devoted primarily to the transportation of freight, it should have filed with this commission an application for authority to operate TH auto-truck service instead of additional TPU services."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is already a settled doctrine of this court, interpreting section 35 of the Public Service Act, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3316, that this court has jurisdiction to review, modify and set aside decisions and orders of the Public Service Commission only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to reasonably support such decisions and orders, or when the case is without the jurisdiction of the commission. (Manila Electric Company v. Balagtas, 58 Phil., 429; Ampil v. Public Service Commission, 59 Phil., 556; Calabia v. Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 659.)
We have reviewed all the evidence of record and, although we have found contradictions and differences between that of the petitioner and that of the respondents, as the Public Service Commission, after a careful and conscientious consideration of the respective merits thereof, had arrived at the conclusion that the public necessity and convenience and the interests of the parties do not warrant the increase of services and the extension of lines applied for by the petitioner, it is likewise an already settled doctrine of this court not to modify said conclusions, which we find to be correct and we adopt for purposes of this decision. (Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal, 44 Phil., 363; Mejica v. Public Utility Commission, 49 Phil., 774; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Acro Taxicab Co. v. Danon, 58 Phil., 75.) .
For the foregoing considerations, and finding that the errors assigned by the petitioner in its brief are not well founded, the appealed decision of the Public Service Commission is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.
In support of its petition, the petitioner assigns five alleged errors as committed by the respondent Public Service Commission in its decision in question, which will be discussed in the course of this decision.
The Public Service Commission, in denying said application stated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Commission is not convinced from the evidence submitted that the increased services applied for by the applicant on his present lines Iloilo-Leon and Iloilo-alimodian are necessary.
"The applicant claims that there is a great need for transportation facilities for carrying freight in the territory applied for as a result of the refusal of the Panay Autobus Co. to transport heavy freight in their trucks. The evidence submitted shows, however, that freight is not refused to be transported by the Panay Autobus Company, there being space in the trucks of said company specially reserved for freight of its passengers. If it is the applicant’s intention to operate an auto-truck service devoted primarily to the transportation of freight, it should have filed with this commission an application for authority to operate TH auto-truck service instead of additional TPU services."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is already a settled doctrine of this court, interpreting section 35 of the Public Service Act, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3316, that this court has jurisdiction to review, modify and set aside decisions and orders of the Public Service Commission only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to reasonably support such decisions and orders, or when the case is without the jurisdiction of the commission. (Manila Electric Company v. Balagtas, 58 Phil., 429; Ampil v. Public Service Commission, 59 Phil., 556; Calabia v. Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 659.)
We have reviewed all the evidence of record and, although we have found contradictions and differences between that of the petitioner and that of the respondents, as the Public Service Commission, after a careful and conscientious consideration of the respective merits thereof, had arrived at the conclusion that the public necessity and convenience and the interests of the parties do not warrant the increase of services and the extension of lines applied for by the petitioner, it is likewise an already settled doctrine of this court not to modify said conclusions, which we find to be correct and we adopt for purposes of this decision. (Ynchausti Steamship Co. v. Public Utility Commissioner and Board of Appeal, 44 Phil., 363; Mejica v. Public Utility Commission, 49 Phil., 774; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. and Acro Taxicab Co. v. Danon, 58 Phil., 75.) .
For the foregoing considerations, and finding that the errors assigned by the petitioner in its brief are not well founded, the appealed decision of the Public Service Commission is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, JJ., concur.
