Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > December 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21168. December 16, 1966.]

BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN, Respondent.

Arnaldo J. Guzman for Petitioner.

Artemio Corpuz for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACT, WHEN REVIEWABLE BY COURTS. — The findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by courts of justice in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of said bodies or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence. In this case at bar, petitioner has not established, either the absence of such evidence, or said abuse of discretion. It merely assails the conclusions of the Public Service Commission as regards the credibility of the opposing witnesses. Apart from the fact that such conclusions are, in general, not reviewable in a proceeding of this nature, the record fails to show that said Commission had erred in relying upon the testimony of the witnesses for respondent and in giving no credence to that of petitioner’s witnesses. In fact, whereas most of the latter were its own employees, the former, excluding respondent, did not appear to have any improper motive to testify as they did.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


On April 23, 1962, Gavino Camunayan filed with the Public Service Commission an application for authority to operate bus service, for the transportation of passengers and freight, on the line Cordon (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan), with 15 auto-trucks. Soon thereafter, Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. — a domestic corporation engaged in the business of operating and maintaining a fleet of buses for the transportation of passengers and freights between Manila and different points in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela and Cagayan — objected to said application. After appropriate proceedings, the Commission rendered judgment on March 5, 1963, directing the issuance to Camunayan of a certificate of public convenience to operate a PUB auto-truck service on the line Ilagan (Isabela) Buguey (Cagayan) via Tuguegarao and Aparri and vice-versa, with 15 units. Hence, this petition for review by said corporation, upon the ground that the Commission has erred: "in granting the respondent" the aforementioned certificate of authority to operate; "in holding that public convenience will be served in a proper and suitable manner by granting" said authority; and "in overruling the opposition of the petitioner" herein.

In this connection, the decision appealed from says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"From the foregoing evidence adduced by the parties, the Commission believes that applicant has sufficiently proved that there is public need for the proposed service. It is quite inconceivable that the Rural Transit could have survived in its transportation business in the Cagayan Valley through all these years if it were true that the usual load of its buses is only from 2 to 12 passengers. No evidence was presented by the oppositor to show that they have been suffering phenomenal losses on the line in question due to the negligible volume of passengers. Besides, if oppositor’s claim is true, it could at least have presented its records to show the actual passenger load of its buses on said line. Moreover, it appears that there are no operators providing a direct service from Ilagan to Buguey. Significantly, majority of the witnesses of oppositor are its own employees whose testimony cannot be accorded much weight because of their special relationship with the oppositor.

"On the whole, the Commission finds the weight of the evidence is in favor of the applicant. Consequently, the opposition filed by the oppositor herein is hereby OVERRULED.

"In view hereof, and considering that public convenience will be served in a proper and suitable manner by the approval of this application, and there being sufficient evidence that applicant is a Filipino citizen and financially capable, the Commission hereby rules that the application herein applied for may be, as it is hereby GRANTED to the applicant and certificate of public convenience be issued authorizing him to operate a PUB auto-truck service on the line Ilagan (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan), and vice versa, with the use of fifteen (15) units . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is well settled, however, that findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by courts of justice in the absence of a grave abuse of discretion on the part of said bodies or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence (La Mallorca & Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Mercado, G. R. No. L-19120, November 29, 1965; Halili v. Daplas, G. R. No. L-20282, May 19, 1965; West Leyte Trans. Co. v. Salazar, G. R. No. L-15418, September 30, 1963; Pangasinan Trans. Co. v. Feliciano, G. R. No. L-14401, August 31, 1962; A.L. Ammen Trans. Co. v. Desuyo, G. R. No. L-10372, May 14, 1958; Guico v. Buan, G. R. No. L-9769, August 30, 1957; Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. v. Vegamore, G. R. No. L-9445, April 29, 1957; Pangasinan Trans. Co. v. De la Cruz, 95 Phil. 278; Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. v. Danon, 58 Phil. 75).

Petitioner herein has not established, either the absence of such evidence, or said abuse of discretion.

Indeed, petitioner argues that "the decision of the Commission granting respondent authority to operate on the line Ilagan (Isabela) to Buguey (Cagayan) via Tuguegarao and vice-versa, is not reasonably supported by the evidence and contrary to law" ; that "the decision in question by the Public Service Commission is contrary to a long line of decisions of this Honorable Court and, therefore, contrary to law, and, thereafter, to declare and hold that said decision of the Commission is not reasonably supported by evidence" ; and that "the Commission in its decision have (has) completely disregarded the testimonies of the witnesses for the petitioner and gave credibility to the testimonies of the witnesses of the respondent, who are mere casual observers whose observations are limited to occasional trips during their travels, compared to the actual observations every day on different hours of the day and night by persons whose main and sole concern is transportation business." (Emphasis ours.)

In other words, petitioner merely assails the conclusions of the Commission as regards the credibility of the opposing witnesses. (Red Line Trans. Co. v. Barrizo, G. R. No. L-19304, August 31, 1964; Flash Taxicab Co. v. Cruz, G. R. Nos. L-15464 and L-16255, March 30, 1963; Raymundo Trans. Co. v. Cervo, 91 Phil. 313; Halili v. Ice & Cold Storage, 77 Phil. 823; Espiritu v. San Miguel Brewery, 63 Phil. 615; Estate of Buan v. Pampanga Bus Co., 53 Off. Gaz. 8553;) Apart from the fact that such conclusions are, in general, not reviewable in a proceeding of this nature, the record before us fails to show that said Commission had erred in relying upon the testimony of the witnesses for Camunayan and in giving no credence to that of petitioner’s witnesses. In fact, whereas most of the latter were its own employees, the former, excluding Camunayan, did not appear to have any improper motive to testify as they did. What is more, respondent’s witnesses were Ricardo Paguirigan, Mayor of Ilagan, Cesar N. Comin, the Chief of Police thereof, Severino Torres, an Agricultural Machinery salesman of GAMI, with official station in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, who covers the whole area of the Cagayan Valley, and Jerundio Tarobal, an old resident of Ilagan, Isabela, and a farmer by occupation, whose testimony discloses nothing that would impair their veracity.

It is urged, however, that the Commission granted appellee a line longer than that applied for; but, this is not a fact, for the line covered by the application was Cordon (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan), which was shortened to Ilagan (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan). It is true that the line granted was via Tuguegarao and Aparri, instead of via Dugo Junction, as stated by respondent’s counsel in open court. But, this is of no consequence, inasmuch as the application was for a direct line from Cordon (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan), without specifying whether it should be via Dugo Junction or via Tuguegarao and Aparri.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-14441 December 17, 1966 PEDRO R. PALTING v. SAN JOSE PETROLEUM INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. L-21915 December 17, 1966 GEORGE W. LUFT COMPANY, INC. v. NGO GUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21803 December 17, 1966 BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC. v. MANILA HOTEL WORKERS’ UNION-PTGWO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21775 December 17, 1966 CO PEK, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-19457 December 17, 1966 VICTORIO MERCADO, ET AL. v. FELIX R. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. L-18411 December 17, 1966 MAGDALENA ESTATES, INC. v. ANTONIO A. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16394 December 17, 1966 JOSE STA. ANA, JR., ET AL. v. ROSA HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-18328 December 17, 1966 DIOSDADA SABINO v. CONRADO CUBA

  • G.R. No. L-21763 December 17, 1966 MUNICIPALITY OF COMPOSTELA, CEBU v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-19740 December 17, 1966 SEVERINO GAGOLA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18630 December 17, 1966 APOLONIO TANJANCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17392 December 17, 1966 JOSE SORIANO v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

  • G.R. No. L-21335 December 17, 1966 ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION v. VIVENCIA ANDO PEPITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25641 December 17, 1966 RAFAEL M. ABAYA v. ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21601 December 17, 1966 NIELSON & COMPANY, INC. v. LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19879 December 17, 1966 CINEMA, STAGE & RADIO ENTERTAINMENT FREE WORKERS v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18089 December 17, 1966 VICTORINA ZABALLERO MILLAR v. RURAL BANK OF LUCENA, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16379 December 17, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAO WAN SING

  • G.R. No. L-18393 December 17, 1966 USAFFE VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19797 December 17, 1966 MARCIANA VILLOCINO, ET AL. v. PEDRO DOYON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20011 December 17, 1966 PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL. v. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17742 December 17, 1966 DON VICENTE NOBLE v. MARIA S. NOBLE

  • G.R. No. L-18159 December 17, 1966 CASINO ESPAÑOL DE MANILA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18826 December 17, 1966 ANTONIO Y. MAYUGA v. CESAR. R. MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966 MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17571 December 17, 1966 HOSPICIA ENCABO, ET AL. v. CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-22395 December 17, 1966 STATE BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22209 December 17, 1966 PHILIPPINES INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25503 December 17, 1966 LEON DEL ROSARIO v. HON. BIENVENIDO CHINGCUANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-16745 December 17, 1966 AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI v. WENCESLAO ZUBIRI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19548 December 22, 1966 NICEFORO S. AGATON v. PATRICIO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26723 December 22, 1966 ARTHUR MEDlNA Y YUMUL v. MARCELO F. OROZCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20330 December 22, 1966 ADOLFO RACAZA v. SUSANA REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19297 December 22, 1966 MARVEX COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. PETRA HAWPIA & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19173 December 27, 1966 ROSE DESAMITO v. TRINIDAD CASAS-CUYEGKENG

  • G.R. No. L-21278 December 27, 1966 FEATI UNIVERSITY v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-21950 December 28, 1966 AMBROCIO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVA BERROYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19460 December 28, 1966 ROQUE BAIRAN v. AGUSTIN TAN SIU LAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20406 December 29, 1966 ENRIQUE R. YU KING v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-19945 December 29, 1966 NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION v. PRISCO WORKERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18210 December 29, 1966 LAURENTIO ARMENTIA v. ERLINDA PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18735 December 29, 1966 NARCISO DEL ROSARIO v. YATCO, ET AL.