G.R. No. L-22306 March 18, 1967
FELICITAS C. TAN, EUGENIO GALVEZ, EMIGDIO MERCADO, CEBU YELLOW TAXI (MANILA YELLOW TAXICAB CO., INC. & CEBU CHECKERED CAB CO., INC.), petitioners, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ANTONIO DE PIO, respondents.

FACTS

Antonio de Pio filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) for authority to operate twenty-five (25) taxicab units in Cebu. The PSC set the application for hearing. Oppositions were filed by Eugenio Galvez, Emigdio Mercado, and Cebu Yellow Taxi. Felicitas Tan sent her opposition by registered mail from Cebu to the PSC in Manila on September 30, 1963. Before it was received, the PSC issued an order commissioning the Municipal Judge of Cebu City to receive evidence. As Tan’s opposition had not yet been received, she was not officially notified of this order or the subsequent hearings held on November 4, 7, 15, and 18, 1963. De Pio and the other oppositors presented evidence during these hearings. On December 4, 1963, the PSC granted De Pio a certificate for fifteen (15) taxicab units. Tan did not file a motion for reconsideration or new trial with the PSC but filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that Tan was denied due process and that there was no evidence to support the finding of public necessity.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner Felicitas Tan was denied due process.
2. Whether the decision of the Public Service Commission was supported by evidence reasonably showing public necessity for the grant of the taxicab franchise.

RULING

1. On the due process issue, the Supreme Court ruled that Felicitas Tan was not denied due process. The Court noted that Tan did not ask the PSC for reconsideration or a new trial to present her evidence. Furthermore, her petition for review did not state what evidence she would present if a new trial were held. The record contained no indication that the outcome would be different if a new trial were held. Since there was no showing of substantial injury, she had no cause for complaint. The other oppositors could not claim a denial of due process as they participated in the hearings.
2. On the issue of public necessity, the Supreme Court affirmed the PSC’s decision, finding it was supported by substantial evidence. The PSC, in its decision, explained that it gave more weight to the quality rather than the quantity of testimony. It found the testimony of the oppositors’ witnesses (four of whom were their employees) to be biased and the testimony of two other witnesses about the availability of taxicabs to be conjectural. The PSC considered the existence of “colorum” cars as an indication of demand, the fact that the last application for additional units was granted over three years prior, and the expansion of Cebu’s population and business activity. It also considered De Pio’s financial capacity, experience, and preparedness to operate. The Supreme Court held that in a petition for review, it would not disturb the PSC’s findings on witness credibility as the version presented was not inherently improbable. The decision appealed from was affirmed.