GR L 24289; (February, 1968) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968
CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Central Taxicab Corporation, an existing operator of 88 taxicab units since 1949, filed an application for an additional 200 units (Case No. 62-6225). The Public Service Commission (PSC) issued a decision dated September 7, 1964, in consolidated cases involving 99 separate applications for certificates of public service. The PSC’s decision denied petitioner’s application, and petitioner was not included in the list of those granted. The PSC’s decision stated that for old operators applying for an increase, it considered whether they had sold part of their units to others, viewing such sales as inconsistent with granting an increase unless exceptional circumstances existed. It also noted that the “old operators rule” for preference was not absolute and was not applicable as new applicants filed first, with old operators initially opposing the need for additional units before filing their own counter-applications. Petitioner contends the denial was arbitrary, discriminatory, and without legal basis. It argues its application was early-filed (October 10, 1960) and not a mere “counter-application,” that it pursued the application zealously with evidence of financial capacity and experience, and that a sale of five units in 1950 was an isolated transaction where the units were acquired and resold for the same price within a short period, followed by subsequent acquisitions of 45 units approved by the PSC. Petitioner also assails the decision for lacking specific findings of fact. The respondents failed to file their briefs.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion or acted arbitrarily and without legal basis in denying Central Taxicab Corporation’s application for additional taxicab units.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the PSC’s decision insofar as it concerned Case No. 62-6225. The Court found the denial of petitioner’s application was not supported by, and was contrary to, the evidence on record. The PSC’s decision failed to specify the grounds for denying petitioner’s application, leading to a suspicion of arbitrariness. The evidence showed petitioner’s application was among the earliest filed, and it presented unrefuted evidence of financial capacity, experience, and preparedness. The sale of five units in 1950, explained as an acquisition and immediate resale at the same price, followed by substantial approved acquisitions, negated any charge of speculation in public service certificates under the PSC’s own standards. The Court noted that in other contemporaneous decisions, the PSC (including the same commissioner) granted increases to operators who, like petitioner, had disposed of some units but purchased others, such as P & B Taxicab Co. Therefore, the denial was without legal basis. The Court directed the PSC to authorize petitioner to operate fifteen (15) additional units under the terms set in the Commission’s decision of September 4, 1964.