G.R. No. L-10831; April 28, 1960
RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. MARIANO GONZAGA, respondent.

FACTS

The respondent, Mariano Gonzaga, filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service for passengers and freight on three lines: (1) Aparri-Rizal via Dungao, Faire, Piat and Tuao; (2) Aparri-Sta. Ana; and (3) Aparri-Tuguegarao, all in Cagayan province, with a proposed equipment of eight units. The application was opposed by several existing operators, including the petitioner, Red Line Transportation Co., Inc. The PSC, after considering the evidence, found that there was an urgent need for additional transportation services on the applied lines. It cited inadequate and poor service from existing operators, insufficient buses during peak seasons (summer, fiestas, harvest periods), buses often being packed and unable to pick up waiting passengers, and significant commercial traffic (e.g., merchants, fish vendors, harvest helpers). Consequently, the PSC granted Gonzaga authority to operate one truck on each of the three lines, instead of the eight requested. The petitioner sought a review of this decision, contending that: (1) Gonzaga was already a holder of a certificate (from Case No. 67507) to operate on the Aparri-Piat line, which was granted subject to a condition that he would not ask for an extension of line, trips, or increase of equipment during its five-year term; and (2) there was absolutely no evidence to support the PSC’s decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting the certificate to Gonzaga despite a condition in a prior certificate (Case No. 67507) prohibiting him from asking for an extension of line or increase of equipment during its term.
2. Whether there is evidence to support the PSC’s decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission.
1. On the first issue, the Court held that the PSC did not err. It examined the routes and found that the newly authorized lines were not strictly extensions of the prior Aparri-Piat line. The Aparri-Rizal line deviates from Faire to Tuao and Rizal, while the Aparri-Tuguegarao line diverges after Gattaran towards Alcala, Amulung, Iguig, and Tuguegarao, unlike the prior line which terminated at Piat via Faire. Even assuming they were extensions, the Court ruled that the PSC has the power under the law ( Commonwealth Act No. 146 , as amended) to grant a certificate for an extension line if it is satisfied that public convenience requires it and the applicant is financially capable.
2. On the second issue, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the PSC’s decision. The Commission did not only consider the evidence submitted by the parties but also took into account its own records of auto-truck services on the lines in question. The evidence established the need for additional service due to inadequate existing transportation.
Costs were imposed against the petitioner.