G.R. No. L-18584 January 30, 1967
RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. MATIAS SANTO TOMAS, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Matias Santo Tomas filed an application with the Public Service Commission to operate a bus service for passengers and freight on the line Imurung-Baggao-Tuguegarao (Cagayan), and vice-versa, using eight auto-trucks. Petitioners Red Line Transportation Co., Inc., Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc., Manuel L. Abrasado, and Teresa Barizo, who are existing transportation operators, filed oppositions. They alleged that their current service on the line is already more than sufficient and adequate to meet public needs, and that granting the application would result in cut-throat and ruinous competition detrimental to public interest. After trial, the Public Service Commission rendered a decision dated April 27, 1961, finding that the oppositors’ contention of no need for the service was not supported by evidence. The Commission found ample and satisfactory evidence showing that approving the service would promote public interest and convenience. It authorized respondent to operate four auto-trucks (instead of eight) on the applied line. Petitioners filed a petition for review, contending that the Commission erred in finding the applicant financially capable and that the approval would promote public interest and convenience.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in finding that the applicant is financially capable of operating the proposed service.
2. Whether the Public Service Commission erred in finding that the approval of the service applied for will promote public interest and convenience in a proper and suitable manner.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission’s finding of respondent’s financial capacity was supported by evidence. Respondent owned a store capitalized at P3,000, had invested P6,000 to P7,000 in a buying and selling business with weekly profits of around P300, had P10,000 deposited in the Philippine National Bank, owned 38 hectares of land valued at P38,000, owned a two-hectare residential and orchard land, and had purchased the four authorized units with P40,000 taken from funds entrusted to his siblings. The Court cited precedents (Mindoro Transportation Co., Inc. v. Torcuator and Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Tambot) where similar or lesser assets were deemed sufficient, and noted the question had become academic as respondent had already acquired and was operating the buses. On the second issue, the Court reiterated the settled rule that the Commission’s conclusion on public necessity and convenience, after weighing conflicting evidence, must be respected and will not be disturbed unless unsupported by evidence. The evidence showed a constant flow of travelers (students, employees, merchants, farmers) on the line, existing transportation was inadequate with trucks and buses always fully loaded and often overloaded, causing long waits for passengers. Specifically, oppositor Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. did not operate buses to Imurung, oppositor Manuel L. Abrasado operated only up to San Jose and very irregularly, and oppositor Red Line Transportation Co., Inc. used only one unit on the line making two trips daily. Oppositor Teresa Barizo presented no evidence. Furthermore, the Municipal Council of Baggao passed a resolution urging approval of the application to benefit the people and minimize accidents from passengers riding on bus tops. Therefore, the Commission’s decision was affirmed.