G.R. No. L-16899 and L-17026; October 29, 1965
DANGWA TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. (PANTRANCO) was authorized to operate passenger buses between Baguio and Tarlac, via Kennon Road and Urdaneta, with 5 1/2 round trips daily. On June 29, 1959, PANTRANCO applied to extend its line southward to Manila, without increasing the number of trips and on condition that no passengers would be picked up or dropped off between Tarlac and Manila. The reason for the extension was to provide direct service for its many through passengers between Baguio and Manila, who otherwise had to transfer buses at Tarlac, causing inconvenience and delay. Petitioner Dangwa Transportation Company, the Manila Railroad Company, and the Estate of Buan (operating Philippine Rabbit Bus Line) opposed the application. Dangwa claimed it was already rendering adequate service on the line, there was no demand for additional service, and approval would cause ruinous competition. During the hearing on August 4, 1959, PANTRANCO presented its evidence. On the same date, Dangwa filed its own application for twenty-two (22) additional trips between Baguio and Manila. The hearing was continued, and Dangwa’s turn to present evidence was set for January 13, 1960. On January 6, 1960, Dangwa filed a motion for postponement without notifying PANTRANCO. Dangwa did not appear at the January 13 hearing, assuming the postponement would be granted. The Public Service Commission denied the motion and considered the case submitted for decision based on the evidence already presented. The Commission found Dangwa’s opposition untenable in light of its own application for additional units. Dangwa’s motion for reconsideration and reopening was denied. On January 28, 1960, the Commission granted PANTRANCO’s application for extension, to be operated as an express service (non-stop) between Tarlac and Manila.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in disregarding the doctrine that old and established operators should be given preference over new ones.
2. Whether the grant of PANTRANCO’s application would result in ruinous competition.
3. Whether petitioner Dangwa Transportation was denied its day in court.

RULING

1. The Public Service Commission did not err. The doctrine of preference for old operators is not absolute and must be applied in light of the circumstances. PANTRANCO was not a new or irregular operator; it already had an authorized line between Baguio and Tarlac. Its application sought merely to extend its existing service for the convenience of its own through passengers, without increasing the number of trips. Furthermore, Dangwa’s own application for twenty-two additional units on the same Baguio-Manila line indicated an existing demand for increased service, which Dangwa only sought to meet after PANTRANCO filed its application.
2. There is no evidence that the grant would cause ruinous competition. The fear is speculative and groundless. The extension was designed primarily to benefit PANTRANCO’s existing passengers who already patronized its service, and it was authorized as an express service with no local operations between Tarlac and Manila.
3. Petitioner was not denied its day in court. It was remiss in its procedural duties by filing a motion for postponement without furnishing a copy to PANTRANCO and without notice of hearing, as required by Rule 26, section 4. It also assumed the postponement would be granted by not appearing at the scheduled hearing. The Commission correctly observed that the main ground of Dangwa’s opposition—lack of need for the service—was untenable given its own simultaneous application for additional trips on the same route.
The decision of the Public Service Commission is affirmed.