G.R. No. 1659, January 31, 1930
SIMPLICIO DE LOS SANTOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. PASAY TRANSPORTATION CO, ET. AL., oppositors-appellees.

(Consolidated with G.R. No. 31660)

FACTS

Simplicio de los Santos applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate auto-trucks on the Manila-Hagonoy route. He was granted a special permit for two months, conditional on operating ten trucks and submitting reports, which he failed to comply with. The Pasay Transportation Co. opposed his application, citing its own pending applications for similar routes. The Public Service Commission first decided in favor of Pasay Transportation Co. in its two applications (which became final as no appeal was taken by de los Santos). Subsequently, the Commission denied de los Santos’ application. De los Santos appealed, arguing that his prior application should be given preference, that the denial based on unfinished bridges was erroneous, and that his non-compliance with the special permit’s conditions should not have been considered.

ISSUE

1. Whether priority in filing an application for a certificate of public convenience is a controlling factor in its grant.
2. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in denying a certificate due to the incompletion of necessary road infrastructure (bridges).
3. Whether the Commission properly considered the applicant’s failure to comply with the conditions of a previously issued special permit.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the Public Service Commission.
1. On priority of application: Priority is merely an element for consideration and does not control the grant of a certificate. The Commission has the discretion to determine which applicant can best serve public convenience and necessity, especially when multiple applications cover the same territory.
2. On incomplete infrastructure: The Commission’s practice of not issuing a certificate until the road is constructed is wholesome and prevents complications. Denial based on unfinished bridges (Malabon-Obando and Obando-Taliptip) was proper.
3. On non-compliance with permit conditions: The appellant’s failure to operate the required number of trucks and submit reports under the special permit indicated a lack of reliability, which is a valid and important consideration in public service.
The appealed orders were affirmed, with costs against appellant de los Santos.