G.R. No. L-14117; April 30, 1960
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. JUANITO NASTOR, respondent.

FACTS

Juanito Nastor applied with the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to operate a TPU auto-truck service for passengers and freight on the line San Manuel-Dagupan City and vice versa in Pangasinan. The Pangasinan Transportation Company opposed the application, arguing that Nastor was not financially capable and that existing services by the oppositor and other operators on the line were already more than sufficient and adequate to serve public needs. The oppositor contended that granting the certificate would result in superfluous and duplicated service, ruinous competition, and prejudice to public service. After both parties presented evidence, the Public Service Commission unanimously overruled the opposition and granted Nastor a certificate to operate three auto-trucks on the applied line. The Pangasinan Transportation Company appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting Juanito Nastor a certificate of public convenience, specifically: (1) in finding that the evidence reasonably supported the grant, and (2) in not holding that the approval would cause ruinous competition detrimental to public necessity and convenience.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the factual findings of the Commission are binding as long as they are reasonably supported by evidence, and the Court is not required to examine the proof de novo. The evidence of record substantially supported the Commission’s findings. The Commission found a need for additional service due to the big volume of passengers from various towns and barrios along the route. Evidence showed that the petitioner operated only one bus daily on the direct San Manuel-Dagupan City line and one bus daily on the Tayug-Dagupan City line (which passes through Binalonan but not directly through San Manuel), and the latter trip was likely already full when passing through Binalonan and San Manuel. The testimonies of the applicant and his witnesses, who were regular commuters, attested to the frequent full capacity of trips. The drivers’ reports presented by the petitioner, which showed a scarcity of passengers, covered only February 1957, a limited period that could represent a lean season for travel, and thus did not sufficiently rebut the applicant’s evidence. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s grant of the certificate.