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 fixed routes 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 had been denied or limited.

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: (1) The PSC, in exercising its quasi-judicial and administrative functions, has the power to consider the results of its own observation and investigation, in conjunction with the evidence presented at the hearing, in determining public necessity. (2) The PSC’s change of view from prior cases was justified as it had reserved the right for further investigation and was not bound by its earlier tentative conclusions. (3) The appellants, having filed and then withdrawn their own applications for increased equipment during the pendency of these applications, could not complain about not being given priority to expand. The appealed decision was supported by evidence and no error was found.

AI Generated by Armztrong.