GR L 10625; (March, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10625; March 22, 1958
RIZAL MANILA TRANSIT, INC., petitioner, vs. CRESENTE VICTORINO, respondent.
FACTS
On November 23, 1954, Cresente Victorino filed an application with the Public Service Commission to operate a TPU service on the line Pililla (Rizal) to Divisoria (Manila) via Pasig and vice-versa using fifteen units. Oppositions were filed by several operators, including Raymundo Transportation Co. (Raytranco). Hearings were held from January 25, 1955, to January 17, 1956. Rizal-Manila Transit, Inc. (petitioner) filed a belated written opposition on January 10, 1956, claiming a preferential right as lessee of Raytranco’s certificate and another certificate. The Commission found that residents along the Pililla-Manila line experienced difficulty obtaining adequate transportation due to Raytranco’s deficient service, evidenced by municipal resolutions and petitions. It was also found that Raytranco’s trucks had been levied by creditors and that petitioner was operating the line as a lessee. The Commission granted Victorino a certificate to operate four units on the line. Petitioner sought review, contending it had a preferential right as an authorized operator of the same line.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting respondent a certificate of public convenience to operate a TPU service from Pililla to Manila in preference to petitioner, who claimed a preferential right as an authorized operator on the same line.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s decision. The petitioner’s contention was not sustained. The Court held that petitioner was not an old operator on the line in its own right but merely a lessee of Raytranco, the real party in interest, whose opposition failed due to its proven deficient service. Petitioner also leased certificates for lines only extending to Binangonan or Angono and Taytay, which were merely portions of the Pililla-Manila line, and thus could not claim a preferential right to the entire line. Furthermore, the Court noted that petitioner had a pending similar application and was also granted a certificate to operate on the same line with even more units than respondent, making it unfair for petitioner to claim a monopoly. The grant to respondent was justified by the proven public need for additional transportation facilities.