G.R. No. L-14101; August 31, 1960
ADRIANA DE BLANCO, petitioner, vs. STA. CLARA TRANSPORTATION CO., respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Adriana de Blanco holds a certificate of public convenience to operate a TPU jitney service on the line Parañaque (Rizal) — Blumentritt (Manila) via Manila South Road, Taft Avenue, Sta. Cruz (McArthur Bridge) and Rizal Avenue. Respondent Sta. Clara Transportation Co. holds a franchise to operate a TPU jitney service on the line Baclaran (Rizal) — Port Area (Manila) via Taft Avenue and F.B. Harrison using 37 units, with 6 as reserves. Upon respondent’s petition and the withdrawal of oppositions, the Public Service Commission (PSC) issued an order on May 6, 1957, granting respondent a special permit valid until December 31, 1961, to operate 18 units on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via Taft Avenue and the remaining 19 units on the line Baclaran — Blumentritt via F.B. Harrison. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing the authorized lines differed from the respondent’s original certificate. The PSC, by order of December 2, 1957, ruled respondent could continue operating on both lines but must use 6 units only as reserves. Petitioner filed subsequent motions, which were denied except for a motion to reset the case for hearing to present her evidence. After the hearing, the PSC, in a decision dated June 9, 1958, affirmed the special permit with modification: respondent shall operate 15 jitneys on the Baclaran-Blumentritt line via Taft Avenue, 16 jitneys on the Baclaran-Blumentritt line via Harrison, and use the remaining 6 units as reserves. Petitioner appealed, assigning as error that the PSC’s grant of a “change of line and time schedule” contravened its Memorandum-Order of March 8, 1957, which stated that special permits granted ex parte should involve no change in lines, time schedules, or number of units authorized.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting the respondent a special permit that involved a change of line, thereby allegedly violating its own Memorandum-Order of March 8, 1957.

RULING

No, the Public Service Commission did not err. The PSC’s interpretation of its Memorandum-Order of March 8, 1957, is that it applies only to special permits granted ex parte. In this case, the authority was not granted ex parte but was based on evidence presented by the respondent establishing the need for the service on the authorized lines. The Court upheld the PSC’s interpretation, citing the principle that it is especially the function of the PSC to interpret its own orders. Furthermore, the Court noted the PSC’s findings, based on evidence, that the extended line would benefit the traveling public (e.g., students, employees, laborers) by providing direct trips without transfers and that there were already sufficient transportation facilities to Port Area. Since public convenience is the paramount consideration guiding the PSC’s actions, the order was upheld. The petition for review was dismissed.