Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > May 1954 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

095 Phil 58:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5906. May 26, 1954.]

ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO, Respondent.

Roman A. Cruz and Ramon G. Umali for Petitioner.

Graciano C. Regala for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER; QUESTION’S OF FACT; SUPREME COURT, WHEN TO INTERFERE. — The Supreme Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Public Service Commission on questions of fact and will interfere only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to sustain its decision.

2. ID.; ID.; DESTRUCTIVE COMPETITION; FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE. — The contention of an operator that the granting of an application for certificate of public convenience would result in destructive competition against existing operators loses its point when it is considered that said operator did not file any opposition to the applications for additional service of other operators granted by the Commission.

3. ID.; ID.; PRIORITY OF EXISTING OPERATORS; FAILURE TO OFFER ADDITIONAL UNITS. — The principle that existing operators should be given priority in supplying any deficiency cannot be invoked where they had failed to offer in any previous occasion to put up additional units.


D E C I S I O N


PARAS, C.J. :


Victoria Vda. de Tengco, respondent herein filed before the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate six passenger and freight buses between San Miguel, Bulacan, and Manila. The application was opposed by Pampanga Bus Co., Nicolas Javier, Bachrach Motor Co., Gaudencio Nicolas, Enrique de Leon, Angat-Manila Transportation Co., Inc. (petitioner herein), and Valentin Fernando, on the ground that their bus service passing through or near San Miguel is adequate to cope with the public need. Only two of these operators, however, actually presented evidence in support of their oppositions.

The respondent presented evidence in the main tending to show that the San Miguel residents need frequent bus service between their town and Manila at all hours of the day; that while there are buses passing through San Miguel, the same, except on few occasions, are nearly so loaded that the San Miguel passengers can hardly be accommodated; that only a bus service from San Miguel to Manila, and vice versa, can assure the people of San Miguel of having transportation between the two points; that the town of San Miguel has a population of about 35,000, two markets and three market days, and about 200 merchants who regularly have to make purchases in Manila, in addition to many students, employees and laborers travelling daily between the two points.

Upon the other hand, the oppositors have relied on the testimony of Agents Marabut and Carpio regarding the passenger loads of buses at San Miguel during a period of nine days, as well as on their reports. According to the Public Service Commission, the checkers’ reports corroborate the testimony of respondent’s witnesses to the effect that, because most of the buses passing through San Miguel for Manila already carried a sufficient load of passengers, the San Miguel residents could not be certain of being accommodated therein; and although said reports show the number of passengers at San Miguel, they do not indicate how many passengers boarded upon departure of the buses from Manila, or whether they could accommodate all the passengers from Manila whose destination was San Miguel.

Upon the evidence thus presented, the Public Service Commission rendered a decision granting respondent’s application, with the express finding that there is a need for permitting the operation of a bus service from Manila with terminal at San Miguel, Bulacan, and that such a service would be much more convenient and would promote the interest of the public of San Miguel than the existing bus services which only pass that town. The authorization of the proposed services would provide the people of San Miguel with bus facilities in their own town and would assure them of the means of transportation which the evidence establishes they need. We find from the evidence that public convenience will be promoted by permitting the applicant to operate six buses on the line of San Miguel-Manila and vice-versa.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for review. It is noteworthy that, out of the various original oppositors to respondent’s application, only two were interested enough to present evidence in their behalf, and only one, herein petitioner, took the trouble of appealing from the decision of the Commission.

It is now elementary that this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Public Service Commission on questions of fact and will interfere only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to sustain its decision. In this case we cannot say that the appealed decision is lacking in evidentiary support.

It is contended for the petitioner that the granting of respondent’s application would result in destructive competition against existing operators between Baliwag and Manila, as well as other operators beyond Baliwag, whose buses pass through San Miguel. This contention loses its point when it is recalled, as indicated in the brief for the respondent, that the petitioner did not file any opposition to the applications for additional service between Baliwag and Manila of Enrique de Leon, Gaudencio Nicolas, Pascual Tuazon, and the respondent, granted by the Public Service Commission after the decision in the case at bar. Neither is there merit in petitioner’s argument that the existing operators whose bus service touches the town of San Miguel, should have been given priority in supplying any deficiency. The petitioner obviously had failed to offer on any previous occasion to put up additional units, and, at any rate, the San Miguel-Manila line may be deemed to be new and independent.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed and it is so ordered with costs against the petitioner.

Pablo, Montemayor, Jugo, Labrador, Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





May-1954 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6669 May 3, 1954 - PEDRO DAQUIS v. MAXIMO BUSTOS

    094 Phil 913

  • G.R. No. L-6736 May 4, 1954 - ISABEL GABRIEL, ET AL. v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

    094 Phil 917

  • G.R. No. L-6220 May 7, 1954 - MARTINA QUIZANA v. GAUDENCIO REDUGERIO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 922

  • G.R. No. L-5773 May 10, 1954 - CASIMIRO, ET AL. v. FABIAN SOBERANO

    094 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954 - PABLO BURGUETE v. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, ET AL.

    094 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-5694 May 12, 1954 - PAMBUJAN SUR UNITED MINE WORKERS v. SAMAR MINING CO., INC.

    094 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-6666 May 12, 1954 - GORGONIO PANDES v. JOSE TEODORO SR., ET AL.

    094 Phil 942

  • G.R. No. L-6765 May 12, 1954 - FULGENCIO VEGA, ET AL. v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-4918 May 14, 1954 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LEON GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-5689 May 14, 1954 - JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. AURELIO MONTINOLA, ET AL.

    094 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-5900 May 14, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FRANCISCO

    094 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. L-5942 May 14, 1954 - R.F.C. v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    094 Phil 984

  • G.R. No. L-6313 May 14, 1954 - ROYAL SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. CO

    094 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-6444 May 14, 1954 - MUN. OF CALOOCAN v. MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL.

    094 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-6572 May 14, 1954 - MAX CHAMORRO & CO. v. PHIL. READY-MIX CONCRETE CO., INC., ET AL.

    094 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-6792 May 14, 1954 - FAUSTO D. LAQUIAN v. FILOMENA SOCCO, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-6921 May 14, 1954 - EUGENIO CATILO v. GAVINO S. ABAYA

    094 Phil 1014

  • G.R. No. L-6481 May 17, 1954 - JESUS GUIAO v. ALBINO L. FIGUEROA

    094 Phil 1018

  • G.R. No. L-7045 May 18, 1954 - BENIGNO C. GUTIERREZ v. LAUREANO JOSE RUIZ, ET AL.

    094 Phil 1024

  • G.R. No. L-5378 May 24, 1954 - CO TIONG SA v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    095 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6408 May 24, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO CARULASDULASAN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-6522 May 24, 1954 - LUIS B. UVERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    095 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-6807 May 24, 1954 - JESUS SACRED HEART COLLEGE v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    095 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6870 May 24, 1954 - ELENA AMEDO v. RIO Y OLABARRIETA, INC.

    095 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-6988 May 24, 1954 - U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. STO. TOMAS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL

    095 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-4817 May 26, 1954 - SILVESTRE M. PUNSALAN v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5682 May 26, 1954 - ANASTACIO N. ABAD v. CANDIDA CARGANILLO VDA. DE YANCE

    095 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-5807 May 26, 1954 - BASILIA CABRERA, ET AL. v. FLORENCIA BELEN, ET AL.

    095 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-5906 May 26, 1954 - ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. VICTORIA VDA. DE TENGCO

    095 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-5953 May 26, 1954 - EX-MERALCO EMPLOYEES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    095 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-6246 May 26, 1954 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX RIPAS

    095 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-6260 May 26, 1954 - HERMOGENES TARUC v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO.

    095 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. L-6306 May 26, 1954 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

    095 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954 - DANIEL CABANGANGAN v. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    095 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-6463 May 26, 1954 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MARCIANO DE LA PAZ

    095 Phil 90

  • G.R. Nos. L-6675-81 May 26, 1954 - BIENVENIDO E. DOLLENTE v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    095 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. L-7024 May 26, 1954 - ROMAN TOLSA v. ALEJANDRO J. PANLILIO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-4935 May 28, 1954 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. QUIRINO BOLAÑOS

    095 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. L-6462 May 28, 1954 - BELEN JOVE LAGRIMAS v. TITO LAGRIMAS

    095 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-6967 May 28, 1954 - JOSE PONCE DE LEON v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7042 May 28, 1954 - CLOTILDE MEJIA VDA. DE ALFAFARA v. PLACIDO MAPA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-3663 May 31, 1954 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MARIA VELASCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    095 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-4510 May 31, 1954 - MARC DONNELLY & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. MANUEL AGREGADO, ET AL.

    095 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. L-4633 May 31, 1954 - GREGORIO ARANETA, INC. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    095 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-5824 May 31, 1954 - PAZ PAREJA v. JULIO PAREJA

    095 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-5837 May 31, 1954 - CRISTOBAL BONNEVIE, ET AL. v. JAIME HERNANDEZ

    095 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. L-6018 May 31, 1954 - EMILIANO MORABE v. WILLIAM BROWN

    095 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-6122 May 31, 1954 - AURELIA DE LARA, ET AL. v. JACINTO AYROSO

    095 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-6461 May 31, 1954 - PILAR ARAULLO MACOY v. CARMEN VASQUEZ TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    095 Phil 192

  • G.R. Nos. L-7403 & L-7426 May 31, 1954 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GAVINO S. ABAYA, ET AL.

    095 Phil 205