G.R. No. L-21547 July 15, 1966
DEL PILAR TRANSIT, INC., petitioner, vs. JOSE M. SILVA, RODOLFO M. SILVA, and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

On December 11, 1962, Jose M. Silva and Rodolfo M. Silva (respondents) filed separate applications with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for certificates of public convenience to operate additional auto-trucks for passenger and freight transportation on specified routes from Cupang, Muntinglupa, Rizal to various points in Manila. Each applicant proposed to operate 20 units (10 per route). Their applications, along with one from Jaguar Transportation, were jointly tried. Several existing operators, including Del Pilar Transit, Inc. (petitioner), opposed the applications. On March 19, 1963, the PSC granted the applications, awarding each Silva applicant a franchise to operate eight auto-trucks on each of their proposed routes (16 units total). Del Pilar Transit, Inc. appealed the decision, questioning only the grants to the Silva applicants, specifically challenging the PSC’s findings on the applicants’ financial capacity and the existence of public necessity for the additional services.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in finding that respondents Jose M. Silva and Rodolfo M. Silva possess the requisite financial capacity and that there exists a public necessity warranting the grant of their applications for new auto-truck services.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission.
1. On Financial Capacity: The Court held that the PSC’s findings on financial capacity were substantially supported by the evidence on record. Jose Silva’s testimony showed net assets of P1,419,750, and Rodolfo Silva’s testimony showed net assets of approximately P345,000. The Court reiterated that in appeals from the PSC, it only determines whether the evidence substantially supports the Commission’s factual findings, without re-examining the proof de novo. The PSC is not bound by strict rules of evidence, and the testimonial evidence presented provided reasonable support for its conclusions.
2. On Public Necessity: The Court held that the PSC’s finding of public necessity was also substantially supported by evidence. The Commission relied on the testimonies of a PSC transportation inspector, Virgilio Celis, and a merchant, Neptalio Amoranto. Celis reported that buses from Laguna and Batangas were full and could not accommodate waiting passengers at Alabang, and that Del Pilar Transit’s services were irregular. Amoranto testified to the inconvenience and lack of direct service. The Court reiterated that findings of the PSC on public necessity are factual and will not be disturbed if some evidence reasonably supports them. The petitioner’s argument that the grant was based on an ineffectual provincial bus ban was rejected, as the decision showed the ban was considered regarding other oppositors who did not appeal, and Del Pilar’s opposition was denied without regard to the ban.