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

FACTS

The respondent, Mariano Gonzaga, applied 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, with a proposed equipment of eight units. The application was opposed by the petitioner, Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., among others. The PSC, after considering the evidence and its own records, 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 (e.g., fiestas, harvest months), buses not following schedules, and an inability to accommodate passengers and merchants, particularly fish vendors from Sta. Ana. The PSC granted the respondent authority to operate one truck on each of the three lines, instead of the eight applied for. The petitioner sought a review of this decision, contending that the respondent was already a holder of a certificate for the Aparri-Piat line granted in Case No. 67507, which was subject to a condition that during its five-year term, the holder would not ask for an extension of line, trips, or increase of equipment. The petitioner argued that the new lines were essentially extensions of the old Aparri-Piat line and that there was no evidence to support the PSC’s decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting the certificate of public convenience to the respondent 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 found that the newly authorized lines were not strictly extensions of the previously granted Aparri-Piat line. The Aparri-Rizal line deviates from Faire to Tuao and Rizal, and the Aparri-Tuguegarao line diverges after Gattaran to Alcala, Amulung, Iguig, and Tuguegarao, whereas the old line terminated at Piat via Faire. Even assuming they were extensions, the PSC has the power under Section 16(m) of 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 held 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 decision under review was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.