G.R. No. L-19643 July 26, 1966
A. L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. FROILAN JAPA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Froilan Japa filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to operate eight TPU buses on the Legaspi-Naga City line. Petitioners A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., Bicol Transportation Company, Inc., and Consolidated Auto Line, Inc., operating under joint management, opposed the application. They argued their existing fleet provided adequate and satisfactory service and that granting the application would lead to cut-throat competition. Japa and his witness testified that on trips between Naga and Legaspi, petitioners’ buses were often full to capacity, leaving many passengers behind, especially in intermediate towns. Japa demonstrated his financial capacity by showing investments of P150,000 in two stores, P8,000 in a savings bank, P30,000 in a bank deposit, and ownership of an unregistered lot. Petitioners’ witness testified they operated 62 round trips daily on the line, with other individual operators making 34 more. He stated buses carried 20-40 passengers depending on the hour, that service was sufficient, and acknowledged that market days in intermediate towns affected traffic volume. It was also noted some individual operators had abandoned their service. The PSC granted Japa a certificate to operate four buses instead of eight, finding it would promote public interest and replace abandoned services, and that Japa was financially qualified. Petitioners sought review, contesting the PSC’s findings on Japa’s financial capacity and on public interest.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Public Service Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in finding respondent Froilan Japa financially qualified to operate the proposed service.
2. Whether the Public Service Commission abused its discretion in declaring the proposed service would promote public interest and replace abandoned operations.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission.
1. On the issue of financial capacity, the Court found no abuse of discretion. The PSC’s finding was supported by evidence of Japa’s assets totaling P188,000 at the time of the hearing. The Court noted that Japa had, in fact, acquired and registered the four authorized buses and had been operating them since the 1962 decision. Petitioners’ argument that Japa lacked real property for credit was countered by this evidence of actual acquisition and operation. The Court cited precedent (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. De la Cruz) where an applicant’s ability to acquire vehicles supported a finding of financial capability.
2. On the issue of public interest and replacement of abandoned services, the Court held the questions raised were factual in nature, involving the evaluation of evidence and witness credibility. Under settled doctrine, such findings of fact by the PSC, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive upon the Supreme Court. The Court cited multiple precedents (e.g., MD Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. vs. Santiago Pepito; Central Bus Corporation vs. Cunanan) establishing that it will not review factual determinations or substitute its discretion where the PSC’s decision has an evidentiary basis.
The Court also denied petitioners’ motion to admit newly discovered evidence (court decisions showing Japa later had difficulties paying for buses), ruling that review is limited to the evidence before the PSC at the time of its decision. To consider new evidence on appeal would improperly require the Court to evaluate matters not before the Commission.