G.R. No. L-19120 November 29, 1965
LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., petitioners, vs. ARMANDO MERCADO, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Armando Mercado filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service with six jitneys on the Balanga-Orion line in Bataan. Petitioners La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. opposed the application, contending their existing service on the line was adequate and sufficient, and that granting the application would only lead to ruinous competition detrimental to public interest. After hearing, the PSC granted Mercado a certificate to operate four units. The PSC’s decision was based on findings that: Balanga, as the provincial capital, attracted passengers from Orion (students, merchants, employees); petitioners’ buses, though passing through the line, were often full and did not usually pick up passengers from Orion; and passengers were forced to ride unauthorized “colorum” jeepneys. The PSC also took cognizance of a memorandum from its Public Service Inspector, Gonzalo Frias, dated August 14, 1961, indicating plenty of “colorum” operators in the area. Petitioners appealed, arguing the PSC gravely abused its discretion by: (1) stating facts not supported by testimony; (2) basing its decision on the inspector’s memorandum without calling him to testify; and (3) authorizing the service despite petitioners’ frequent service and 35 other buses on the line.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission gravely abused its discretion in granting respondent Armando Mercado a certificate of public convenience to operate four jitneys on the Balanga-Orion line.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the PSC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence in the record. Regarding the memorandum of Inspector Frias, the Court ruled it was permissible for the PSC, as a fact-finding body, to consider its own records, including periodic reports from its field agents, in reaching its conclusion. The memorandum was not the sole basis for the decision and was a routinary report not specially made for the case, so the inspector’s testimony was not required. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that findings of fact by the PSC, after weighing evidence, will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by evidence. The PSC did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was a public necessity for the additional service.