G.R. Nos. L-17832-33; May 29, 1963
ALFONSO CABABA, petitioner, vs. BALBINO REMIGIO and PONCIANO CARILLO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfonso Cababa, an existing ferry service operator across the Cagayan River between barrios Catotoran and Caloagan in Camalaniugan, Cagayan, appealed a joint decision of the Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC granted certificates of public convenience to respondents Balbino Remigio and Ponciano Carillo to operate separate ferry services across the Cagayan River, linking different points in Camalaniugan and Aparri. Cababa opposed both applications, arguing that respondents were financially incapable, that there was no public need for additional services, and that he should be given preference to expand his own service if any need existed.
The PSC found respondents financially capable based on their substantial assets. Remigio owned riceland, a house, trucks, motorboats, and had a significant annual income. Carillo similarly owned agricultural land, real estate, businesses, motor vessels, and was already an authorized ferry operator in other areas. The PSC also found a public need for additional services, citing a provincial board resolution noting inadequate existing service and overcharging, and evidence that Cababa, who also operated truck services, might be discriminating against passengers from his competitors’ trucks by prioritizing his own in his ferry operations.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting certificates of public convenience to respondents Remigio and Carillo over the opposition of existing operator Cababa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s decision, finding no error. On financial capability, the Court upheld the PSC’s factual finding that both respondents possessed sufficient capital and assets to undertake the proposed services, dismissing Cababa’s challenges to their past business dealings as not indicative of insolvency. On public need, the Court deferred to the PSC’s factual determination, which was supported by evidence including an official resolution from the Provincial Board of Cagayan decrying inadequate and onerous existing ferry service. The PSC reasonably concluded that authorizing two additional operators, each limited to one motorboat and required to charge the same rates as Cababa, would serve the public interest by improving service and preventing discrimination.
The Court emphasized that while an existing operator’s investment deserves protection, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience. The PSC correctly balanced these factors, finding that the special circumstances—particularly the potential for discriminatory practices by a vertically integrated operator like Cababa who controlled both truck and ferry services—justified introducing controlled competition. The Court held that the question of ruinous competition was one of fact for the PSC, whose conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and thus binding on review.