G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Fortunato F. Halili, has been operating the Halili Transit for over twenty years, authorized to operate 82 cars on routes from Manila to points in Bulacan, Rizal, Abra, and the Ilocos region. Since June 1, 1948, as successor to the Manila Electric Company under a Public Service Commission order, he has operated 179 cars (plus 27 reserve) on specific Manila city and suburban lines: Sangandaan-Quiapo, Caloocan-Quiapo, and Maypajo-Quiapo, with frequent trips during rush and off-peak hours. Hundreds of other cars also operate on these lines.
The respondent, Paz E. de la Cruz, held a provisional certificate to operate passenger cars on several lines, including Malabon-Quiapo and Sangandaan-Quiapo via various routes. On June 25, 1948, she filed an application (PSC Case No. 33855) to: (1) convert her provisional certificate into a permanent certificate of public convenience; (2) increase her number of cars; (3) operate on new lines; and (4) be authorized to increase her cars to 50. The petitioner, along with Pasay Transportation Co., Inc. and Miguel R. Mateo, opposed this application.
After a hearing, the Public Service Commission, on August 12, 1949, issued a decision disapproving two of her petitions but granting Paz E. de la Cruz a 25-year certificate of public convenience to operate 21 auto-trucks on the line Sangandaan-Quiapo via Maypajo and Divisoria, and 3 auto-trucks on the line Sangandaan-Quiapo via Grace Park. The petitioner appealed this decision; the other opponents did not.

ISSUE

Whether the appealed decision of the Public Service Commission is supported by the evidence and is in accordance with law.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition, with costs against the petitioner. The Court held that the conclusion of the Public Service Commission was supported by the evidence on record and found no reason to modify it. The Court reiterated its doctrine that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the Public Service Commission, which had the opportunity to properly weigh the evidence presented by the parties, nor will it revoke the appealed decision if there is reasonable evidence to support it.
The Court addressed the petitioner’s claim of suffering a daily loss of at least P250 from his bus operations, finding it unfounded because the petitioner’s counsel failed to present promised exhibits (Exhibits “5” to “11”) related to the lines in question, giving rise to the presumption that their probative value would have been adverse to the petitioner’s claim.
The Court further found that the Commission did not err in concluding that granting the respondent a permanent certificate would not prejudice the old operators and was necessary to meet the demands of the increased population of Manila and its neighboring towns (which grew from 724,644 in 1939 to 1,196,546 in 1948).
The petitioner’s contention, citing Batangas Transportation Company v. Ortanes, that the investment of old operators should be protected, was held inapplicable. The Court emphasized that the respondent started her business during abnormal times (1947), responding to a transportation crisis by purchasing cars at high black market prices when the old operators, including the petitioner’s predecessor, were not in a position to serve the public and did not oppose her provisional certificates. The respondent, having invested capital and effort when the petitioner could not adequately serve the public, deserved the opportunity to continue operating to protect her own investment, having operated for only about two years compared to the petitioner’s many years. The petitioner had an obligation in 1947 to immediately restore his cars but failed to do so. Therefore, the Public Service Commission did not err in granting the respondent a 25-year certificate for the indicated lines.