G.R. No. 41443 ; November 3, 1934
MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. N. & B. STABLES CO., INC., respondent-appellee.

G.R. No. 41448; November 3, 1934
MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. DOMINGO VITAL, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

The Public Service Commission (PSC) granted certificates of public convenience to N. & B. Stables Co., Inc. to operate 30 additional taxicabs and to Domingo Vital to operate 20 taxicabs (substituting garage cars) for passenger transportation without a fixed route in Manila and neighboring municipalities. Existing taxicab operators (Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., et al.) appealed, arguing the evidence did not reasonably support a finding of public necessity for more taxicabs. They contended the PSC improperly relied on its own observation and investigation, and that the evidence presented was similar to that in prior applications which the PSC had previously found insufficient.

ISSUE

Whether the PSC’s decision, finding public necessity for additional taxicab services, is reasonably supported by the evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s decision. The Court held that the PSC, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial and administrative functions, has the power to consider the results of its own observation and investigation, in connection with other evidence presented at a hearing, to determine public necessity. The PSC’s conclusion that the taxicab service had not reached a point of saturation was based on such observation and investigation, as well as testimonial evidence. The Court reiterated the doctrine that when a PSC order is reasonably supported by evidence, it will not be reversed. Furthermore, the appellants, who had previously filed but later withdrew their own applications for increased equipment, could not complain about not being given priority to expand before new applicants were authorized.

AI Generated by Armztrong.