G.R. No. L-12306-7 November 29, 1961
ROSA L. VDA. DE FARIÑAS, petitioner, vs. ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosa Vda. de Fariñas held several Certificates of Public Convenience authorizing her to operate a total of eleven passenger trucks on various routes in Ilocos Norte. By 1955, she had registered only four units. She filed an application to register five additional trucks. The Estate of Florencio Buan, a competing operator, filed a petition to cancel some of her time schedules, alleging she had willfully abandoned her authorized lines by failing to register and operate the required number of units for over three years. At the hearings, Fariñas admitted operating only four trucks but argued her failure was due to successive accidents involving her vehicles and personal misfortunes, including family deaths, which left her shocked and financially strained despite allegedly having funds. She contended she never intended to abandon her routes and that public necessity warranted the additional units.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission correctly cancelled portions of Fariñas’s certificates for willful abandonment of her authorized service.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s decision. The legal logic rests on the principle that a certificate of public convenience is a privilege burdened with public interest, requiring the grantee to maintain committed service. The Court found Fariñas’s failure to register seven of her eleven authorized units from 1952 to 1956 constituted abandonment. Her justifications—successive accidents and personal misfortunes—were deemed insufficient to excuse non-compliance. The Court reasoned that financial stability is a prerequisite for operators precisely to cope with such foreseeable business hazards; personal distress does not constitute a circumstance “beyond the operator’s control” warranting leniency. Moreover, Fariñas never petitioned the PSC for authority to suspend service or defer registration, violating commission rules. The PSC’s factual finding of willful abandonment was supported by evidence, including her own admissions and prior PSC denials of other applicants for the same routes, indicating the abandoned service was no longer crucial for public convenience. The Court emphasized that an operator who unjustifiably neglects service for years forfeits the privilege, as public necessity cannot be subordinated to private incapacity or inaction.