G.R. No. 31244, September 23, 1929
BOHOL LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., petitioner-appellant, vs. NAZARIO S. JUREIDINI, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The Bohol Land Transportation Co. (BLTC) is an existing common carrier operating in Bohol under a certificate of public convenience. Nazario S. Jureidini applied for a certificate to operate 14 trucks on the same routes. The Public Service Commission granted Jureidini’s application and simultaneously cancelled BLTC’s authority to make special trips. The Commission based its decision on testimonial evidence alleging BLTC’s inadequate service, including overcrowding, leaving passengers behind, overloading violations, unauthorized route changes, and a three-day refusal to carry mail in 1927. BLTC appealed, presenting statistical reports showing its buses operated at only about 28% of passenger capacity on average in early 1928, indicating sufficient existing capacity. BLTC also explained the mail incident arose from a dispute with postal employees over procedures and was later resolved.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting a new certificate of public convenience to Jureidini without first giving BLTC an opportunity to improve any deficient service.
2. Whether the Commission erred in cancelling BLTC’s authority to make special trips without proper notice and hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the order of the Public Service Commission.

1. On granting a new certificate: The Commission erred. Before issuing a new certificate to a competitor in an area already served by an existing certified carrier, the existing operator must be given an opportunity to improve its service if found deficient. The evidence against BLTC was largely general, unspecific, and uncorroborated by official complaints. In contrast, BLTC’s statistics demonstrated available capacity. The mere fact that Jureidini obtained a mail contract is not, by itself, sufficient justification for a new certificate without first assessing the existing carrier’s ability to meet the need, including carrying mail as required by law.

2. On cancelling existing authority: The Commission erred. The cancellation of a part of BLTC’s certificate (its special trip authority) constitutes a partial revocation. Such action cannot be done without prior notice and a hearing for the affected party, which was not afforded to BLTC.

DOCTRINE:
(1) Before a certificate of public necessity and convenience is granted to a new transportation operator in an area already served by a certified carrier, the existing operator must be given an opportunity to improve its service if it is found inadequate. (2) A certificate of public convenience, or any right thereunder, cannot be revoked or cancelled, either totally or partially, without prior notice and hearing for the holder. (3) The mere possession of a mail contract by an applicant is not sufficient proof of public necessity and convenience to justify a new certificate.