SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19558           November 29, 1963

LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY Petitioners, vs. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA, Respondent.

Manuel O. Chan and Vicente Ampil for petitioners.
Abel de Ocera for respondent.

R E S O L U T I O Nchanrobles virtual law library

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

On account of the loss of petitioner's Exhibits D, D-1, D-1-a, D-1-b, D-1-c, D-1-d, while in the possession of Public Service Commission, to which they had been previously submitted, and in view of the impossibility of reconstituting the same, as reported by the Commission of this Court, the petitioners-appellants La Mallorca Pampanga Bus Co., has moved for the setting aside the decision under appeal, and a remand of the record to the Public Service Commission for a new trial. Respondent-appellee, Cirilo D. Mendiola, registered his position.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Considering that the lost exhibits appear to be observation reports of motor vehicles for hire, operating at specified times on the Guagua-San Fernando line, showing their plate number, passenger load, and direction taken by them, as observed by appellant's witness, Pineda, and submitted to the Commission to rebut applicant-respondent's own evidence;chanrobles virtual law library

Considering that there is no proof that the lost exhibits were not duly considered and taken into account by the Public Service Commission when it rendered its decision now under appeal, where said Commission has held that -

From the mass of evidence, we find the following fact's established; - that there is the operating of ten jitneys and six buses on the proposed line; that there are daily commuters on this line; that the present, number of vehicles operating on this line is not sufficient to cope with the number of passengers on this line; and that applicant is financially capable to operate and maintain the service herein applied for. (Emphasis supplied);

Considering the established rule that in cases of this nature the Supreme Court is not authorized to weigh the conflicting evidence and substitute its own conclusions thereon for those of the Public Service Commission (Halili, et al. vs. Isip, L-2458, 28 Jan. 1950; Ice & Cold Storage Industries vs. Valero, 85 Phil. 7, and cases cited therein), the sole mission of this Court being to ascertain whether "it clearly appears that there was evidence before the Commission to reasonably support" the decision, a pronouncement that primarily depends on the character of the applicant's evidence, which has not been lost;chanrobles virtual law library

The Court resolves to DENY the petitioner's motion to set aside and remand, and to require the petitioner to file its brief within thirty (30) days from receipt of this resolution. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes and Makalintal, JJ., concur.