Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > April 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-7059. April 28, 1956.] LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., and BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., Petitioners, vs. OCTAVIANO PABALAN, Respondent.:


[G.R. No. L-7059.  April 28, 1956.]





On October 27, 1952, herein Respondent Octaviano Pabalan filed an application with the Public Service Commission to operate an auto- truck service with four jeepneys on the following lines:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Calamba- College via Los Baños, Calamba-Tanauan (Batangas) and Calamba Canlubang (Laguna).

The herein Petitioners, Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. and Batangas Transportation Co., filed opposition to the application on the ground that they are now operating more than enough buses on the lines applied for by the applicant; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the Honorable Commission has already granted various operators several certificates of public convenience on the routes sought which are sufficient to serve the people and that any grant in favor of the applicant of a new certificate of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service along the lines mentioned in the application would create ruinous competition to the Oppositors and the other operators.

After hearing, the Public Service Commission rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which is as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

“In view of the foregoing considerations, the opposition filed by the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and Batangas Transportation Company is hereby overruled, and it appearing from the evidence that applicant is a Filipino citizen and is financially capable to operate and maintain the proposed service, and that the approval of this application will promote public convenience and interests in a proper and suitable manner, it is ordered that, under the provisions of Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, the certificate of public convenience applied for be issued to the applicant  cralaw.”

Not satisfied with this decision, the Petitioners have appealed to this Court contending that the Public Service Commission erred:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) in not holding that the granting of a new certificate on the lines applied for by applicant (Respondent) would only create ruinous competition to the herein Petitioners and other operators of said lines; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) in holding that public convenience and necessity will be served by the approval of Respondent’s application because the evidence in this case does not warrant the finding that there was or there is any need for the service sought for in the application; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(3) in not giving the Petitioners preference in the granting of new units on the lines in question; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (4) in not denying the application of the Respondent in so far as the lines covered by the application of the Respondent are concerned, and in not sustaining Petitioner’s opposition thereto.

Errors 1, 2 and 3 essentially raise the issue that the evidence in the case does not warrant the finding that there was need for the service sought for in the application and that the grant of a new certificate in favor of the applicant would create ruinous competition to the Oppositors. But we find that during the hearing of the case before the Public Service Commission, the parties introduced their respective evidence and, after mature consideration thereof, the Public Service Commission rendered its decision containing the following findings of fact:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

(a)  “It appears from the evidence presented by the applicant that he proposes to operate one unit on the line Calamba-College via Los Baños, two units on the line Calamba-Tanauan, and one unit on the line Calamba-Canlubang that he has already acquired the four units which he proposed to operate as shown by the certified copies of the certificates of registration marked Exhibits “C”, “C-1”, “C-2” and “C- 3” that the trucks operating on these lines are usually filled to capacity and there are many passengers who cannot be accommodated by the present transportation facilities that there are also many passengers on the line Calamba-Canlubang because of the cadre of the Second Military Area and the families of the soldiers living in the camp often travel to and from this area; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat on the Calamba-College line the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company operates only one truck; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that the Batangas Transportation Company operates express trucks which do not pick up passengers in the barrios along the lines in question.

(b)  “Staff Sergeant Lorenzo Romabiles, traffic officer of the Philippine Constabulary of the province of Laguna, stationed at Los Baños, furthermore testified that according to his personal observation, there is a heavy volume of passengers riding in the buses and jeepneys operating on the lines Calamba-Canlubang; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat he has apprehended many TPU jeepneys and buses as well as autocalesas for overloading, that there are plenty of passengers between Calamba and Canlubang because there is an army installation, Camp Vicente Lim, where there are about one thousand soldiers living with their families; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that there are more than two thousand persons employed in the Canlubang Estate who need additional transportation facilities on the lines herein applied for.

(c)  “On the other hand, the Oppositors submitted evidence tending to show that their buses operating on the lines covered by the present application can accommodate all the passengers; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the average passenger load of their buses is less than the authorized maximum passenger capacity of the said buses as shown by the reports of its inspectors marked Exhibits “1”, “2”, and “3”; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythat aside from the buses of the Oppositors, there are also other TPU auto trucks and auto-calesas operating along these lines as shown by the census taken by the inspectors of the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company and presented in evidence as Exhibits “4”, “4-a” to “4-d”, Exhibits “5”, “5-a”, to “5- e”, Exhibits 6, 6-a to 6-d, and that the Oppositors have suffered losses in the operation of their San Pablo-Manila line, Tanauan-Calamba line and Calamba-Canlubang line as shown by their monthly operation reports for March and April, 1953, marked as Exhibits “7” and “7-a”, respectively.

(d)  “After a careful consideration of the evidence submitted by both parties and the records of this Commission on authorized autotruck services on the lines herein applied for, we are of the opinion that public convenience and necessity will be served by the approval of this application inasmuch as the service being rendered by the Oppositors on the lines in question is inadequate to meet the needs of the inhabitants for a local service which applicant proposes to operate.”

As could be seen, the decision appealed from is predicated on the evidence presented at the trial of the case, which the Public Service Commission found to be in favor of the Respondent; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryconsequently, the same should not be disturbed, for in several decisions we have already held that “this Court would not unduly interfere with the Commission or attempt to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the Commission if there be evidence before it reasonably supporting its order.

Under the third assignment of error, Petitioners strongly urge that the Public Service Commission should not have granted the application but should have required the Oppositors to increase their service on the lines applied for by the new applicant, being old and established operators on the said lines. This contention, however, was not pleaded by the Petitioners in their opposition to the application; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryit was not raised during the hearing of the case, and it is only raised now in this appeal, hence it cannot be properly entertained by this Court.

Wherefore, finding no errors in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Oppositors, herein Petitioners.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

April-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-7448. April 11, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FLAVIANA TALAO PEREZ, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8892. April 11, 1956.] ALFREDO HALILI and TOMAS P. JACOB for themselves and in behalf and for the benefit of forty-one other persons all owning their respective houses inside the Palomar Compound, Tonco, Manila, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila and ALEJO AQUINO, as City Engineer, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9121. April 11, 1956.] LEONISA B. BACALTOS, assisted by her husband RICARDO P. BACALTOS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. FRANCISCO ESTEBAN, JR., FRANCISCO ESTEBAN, SR. and PAZ PAGSUMBUNGAN, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9267. April 11, 1956.] ALFREDO TOLENTINO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. ANTONIO O. ALZATE, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7801. April 13, 1956.] Testate Estate of Dņa. Perpetua A. Vda. de Soriano. DOLORES ALBORNOZ, Petitioner. ELIAS RACELA, claimant-Appellant, vs. DOLORES ALBORNOZ and JOSE ALBORNOZ, co- special administrators Oppositors-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-8257. April 13, 1956.] JOSE R. CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. REYNALDO PAHATI, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.


  • [G.R. No. L-8667. April 13, 1956.] URBANO TABORA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. HONORABLE ALFREDO MONTELIBANO, in his capacity as Secretary of Economic Coordination, and NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC), Defendants. NATIONAL RICE AND CORN CORPORATION (NARIC), Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8724. April 13, 1956.] PABLO ESPAŅOLA, Petitioner, vs. VICENTE T. SINGSON, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9034. April 13, 1956.] JOSE A. SUELTO, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE CECILIA MUŅOZ-PALMA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental and RICARDO TEVES, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9893. April 13, 1956.] MAURA LUMANLAN, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-5203. April 18, 1956.] STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LUZON STEVEDORING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellee.


  • [G.R. No. L-7361. April 20, 1956.] PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. COMPAŅIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8026. April 20, 1956.] ISABEL PADILLA Y ANGELES, represented by her legal guardian, NATIVIDAD ANGELES VDA. DE PADILLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LUCIANO C. DIZON, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8369. April 20, 1956.] THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8546. April 20, 1956.] GENOVEVA S. VILLALON and AUGUSTO VILLALON, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP and WILLIAM GOLANGCO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8379. April 24, 1956.] VICTORINO MANALO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION AND CAPITAL INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-6962. April 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. KANTONG ALI, accused, LUZON SURETY CO., INC., bondsman-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7457. April 25, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BUENCONSEJO DACIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8496. April 25, 1956.] LIM SI, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ISABELO P. LIM, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-6848. April 27, 1956.] MANILA LIGHTER TRANSPORTATION, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, THE CITY TREASURER, and THE CITY MAYOR, all of the CITY OF CAVITE, Respondents-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7175. April 27, 1956.] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Petitioner, vs. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7643. April 27, 1956.] PEDRO O. CASIMIRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. LEON ROQUE and ERNESTO GONZALES, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-7717. April 27, 1956.] G. B., INC., ETC., Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE CONRADO V. SANCHEZ, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8142. April 27, 1956.] MACHINERY & ENGINEERING SUPPLIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MAXIMINO A. QUINTANO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-8772. April 27, 1956.] RAMCAR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [Adm. Case. No. 90. April 28, 1956.] MARIA L. ALDANA, complainant, vs. ATTORNEY FRANCISCO MENDOZA ABAD, Respondent.


  • [G.R. No. L-5510. April 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAFAEL ARANUA, ET AL., Defendants. RAFAEL ARANUA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6202. April 28, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAFAEL CABUENA, ET AL., Defendants. GREGORIO CORDIZAR and EUTIQUIO BOHOL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7059. April 28, 1956.] LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., and BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO., Petitioners, vs. OCTAVIANO PABALAN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-8219. April 28, 1956.] BENITO TAN CHAT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. C. N. HODGES, ET AL., Defendants; C. N. HODGES, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8277. April 28, 1956.] THOMAS BUYAYAO and BONGAYAN BUYAYAO, assisted by her husband DAPLANG, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. ITOGON MINING COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8536. April 28, 1956.] The Intestate Estate of Fausto Bayot, represented by CELESTE BAYOT, Judicial Administratrix, applicant-Appellee, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8654. April 28, 1956.] ANTONINO DIZON, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. FROILAN BAYONA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8694. April 28, 1956.] MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CITY OF MANILA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8702. April 28, 1956.] VICENTE BASILIO, Petitioner, vs. ZOILO DAVID, VICENTE DAVID, AMPARO DAVID, ESTELITA DAVID and LADISLAO DAVID, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8782. April 28, 1956.] MARCELINO B. FLORENTINO and LOURDES T. ZANDUETA, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondent-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9088. April 28, 1956.] ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-9304. April 28, 1956.] DOROTEO DE LA CRUZ, JULIA ROBLES AND NARCISO ALIGADA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. RAFAEL L. RESURRECCION and ALMEDA, FRANCISCO & CO., Defendants-Appellants.