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

FACTS

Simplicio de los Santos applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate auto-trucks on the Manila-Hagonoy route. The Public Service Commission granted him a two-month special permit, conditional on operating ten trucks and submitting reports. He failed to comply, operating only one truck and not submitting reports. Meanwhile, Pasay Transportation Co. filed competing applications for similar routes. The Commission first decided in favor of Pasay Transportation Co. in two related cases (Nos. 14467 and 16076), which became final after de los Santos did not appeal. Subsequently, in de los Santos’s main case (No. 14088), the Commission denied his application, considering his non-compliance with the special permit conditions and the fact that necessary bridges along the route were not yet constructed. De los Santos appealed, arguing priority of application, error in considering the unfinished bridges, and error in factoring his non-compliance with the special permit.

ISSUE

1. Whether priority of application entitles an applicant to a certificate of public convenience over a later applicant.
2. Whether the Commission erred in denying a certificate due to unfinished road infrastructure.
3. Whether the Commission erred in considering the applicant’s failure to comply with conditions of a special permit.

RULING

1. No. Priority of application is not controlling. The primary consideration is public convenience and necessity. The Commission has discretion to determine which applicant best serves the public interest, even if another applied earlier.
2. No. The Commission’s practice of withholding certificates until roads are constructed is reasonable to prevent complications and ensure feasible operation.
3. No. An applicant’s failure to comply with permit conditions demonstrates unreliability, which is a valid factor in assessing fitness for public service.
The orders of the Public Service Commission are affirmed. Costs against appellant de los Santos.