G.R. No. 33689; March 13, 1931
MINDANAO BUS COMPANY, petitioner-appellant, vs. CAGAYAN-MISAMIS LAND TRANSPORTATION CO., respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Teofilo Bungabong, on behalf of Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co., filed an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate an autotruck service on certain routes. Due to clerical errors by the Public Service Commission in sending notices, Bungabong failed to attend the hearings, leading to the dismissal of his application. He moved for reinstatement, which was granted. Meanwhile, one day after Bungabong’s motion for reinstatement, Mindanao Bus Co. filed its own application for the same routes. The Commission eventually granted certificates to both companies, but Mindanao Bus Co. contested the grant to Cagayan-Misamis, arguing it had priority as the prior applicant after the dismissal and that it should have been notified of the reinstatement.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting a certificate of public convenience to Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co., considering the issues of priority of application and lack of notice of reinstatement to Mindanao Bus Co.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. Priority of application is not an absolute right to a monopoly; the controlling consideration is which applicant can best serve public convenience and necessity. Here, Cagayan-Misamis was the prior applicant, and its reinstatement was valid. The temporary abatement of its application did not negate its priority. Moreover, notice of reinstatement to a later applicant like Mindanao Bus Co. was not required, and in any case, Mindanao Bus Co. was able to present its opposition in subsequent proceedings. The Commission’s decision was upheld.

AI Generated by Armztrong.