G.R. No. L-26900 February 27, 1970
R.C. LEDESMA, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ANTONIO HERAS, MD TRANSIT, INC., and DE DIOS TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner R.C. Ledesma applied with the Public Service Commission for a certificate to operate a passenger and freight jitney service from the corner of Banawe and Laong-Laan, Quezon City, to the Manila City Hall, using twenty units. The Commission, in a divided decision, granted the application but with two modifications: it reduced the authorized units from twenty to ten, and it limited the southern terminal of the route to the corner of Laong-Laan and Governor Forbes, Manila, instead of the City Hall. Commissioner Enrique Medina voted to approve the application as filed (except for the unit reduction), finding the service essential due to the recent opening of Laong Laan Street and the lack of authorized operators on the upper portion of the line. Associate Commissioner Gregorio C. Panganiban concurred only in authorizing service from Banawe and Laong-Laan to Laong-Laan and Governor Forbes, dissenting from extending it to City Hall because that portion (Dimasalang to City Hall) was already declared saturated and congested. With Commissioner Filomeno C. Kintanar dissenting, the view of Commissioner Panganiban prevailed, forming the Commission’s decision. Petitioner seeks a review to modify the decision to allow operation up to the Manila City Hall as originally applied for.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can modify the decision of the Public Service Commission to authorize petitioner’s jitney service to operate up to the Manila City Hall, instead of being limited to the corner of Laong-Laan and Governor Forbes.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Commission is limited by Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 . It may modify or set aside an order only when it clearly appears that there was no evidence to support it reasonably, that it is contrary to law, or that it was rendered without jurisdiction. Petitioner’s contention that the Commission sacrificed public convenience to protect big operators is essentially a factual challenge. The Court is bound by the factual findings of the Commission, such as its determination that the portion of the route from Dimasalang to City Hall is saturated. The Court cannot re-examine the evidence de novo or substitute its discretion on questions of fact. Since the Commission’s decision had reasonable support in the evidence and was within its jurisdiction, the Supreme Court upheld it.