GR 21168; (December, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21168 December 16, 1966
BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. GAVINO CAMUNAYAN, respondent.
FACTS
On April 23, 1962, respondent Gavino Camunayan filed an application with the Public Service Commission for authority to operate a bus service for passengers and freight on the line Cordon (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan) using 15 auto-trucks. Petitioner Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., an existing operator of bus services between Manila and points in Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela, and Cagayan, opposed the application. After proceedings, the Commission granted Camunayan a certificate of public convenience on March 5, 1963, authorizing him to operate a PUB auto-truck service on the line Ilagan (Isabela) — Buguey (Cagayan) via Tuguegarao and Aparri and vice-versa, with 15 units. The Commission found that public need for the proposed service was sufficiently proved, noting the absence of direct service from Ilagan to Buguey, and gave more weight to the evidence presented by the applicant over the opposition’s evidence, which largely came from its own employees. Bachrach Transportation petitioned for review, challenging the grant of the certificate.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion or erred in granting the certificate of public convenience to respondent Camunayan based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that findings of fact by administrative bodies like the Commission will not be interfered with by courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence. Petitioner failed to establish either the absence of substantial evidence or such abuse. The Court found no error in the Commission’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that most of the petitioner’s witnesses were its own employees, whereas the respondent’s witnesses, including the Mayor and Chief of Police of Ilagan, had no apparent improper motive. The Court also clarified that the line granted (Ilagan to Buguey) was actually shorter than the one applied for (Cordon to Buguey), and the specification of the route via Tuguegarao and Aparri was inconsequential as the application did not specify a particular route. Therefore, the grant of the certificate was upheld.