G.R. No. L-3465; October 25, 1951
FORTUNATO F. HALILI, petitioner, vs. JORGE R. FLORO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Fortunato F. Halili, a pre-war TPU operator, opposed the application of respondent Jorge R. Floro for a regular certificate of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service with thirty-five (35) units on specified routes in Manila and Pasay. Halili’s grounds for opposition included: his prior pre-war service on the routes; the adequacy of current service; his preference to supply any deficiency; the potential for ruinous and unfair competition; Floro’s alleged financial incapacity; and the contention that emergency certificates (under which Floro was operating 12 units) were still valid due to the ongoing emergency. The Public Service Commission granted Floro’s application. Halili petitioned the Supreme Court for review, assigning errors primarily concerning the adequacy of existing service, public necessity, unfair competition, his preferential right, and Floro’s financial capability.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting Jorge R. Floro a regular certificate of public convenience to operate additional auto-truck service on the contested routes.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court found ample evidence to support the Commission’s findings. It noted the general knowledge of a significant population increase (over 50%) in the area since pre-war times, while the total carrying capacity of buses was about equal to pre-war levels. Testimonial evidence presented to the Commission showed that passenger buses were overcrowded, insufficient, and caused danger and discomfort. The Court held that Halili’s claim of readiness to supply any deficiency was not worthy of consideration as he should have applied for such increase before Floro did, thereby waiving any preferential right. Regarding financial capability, the Commission’s finding that Floro was capable was supported by evidence of his assets (P109,382.94 in his transportation business, a P5,000 bank deposit, a P35,000 credit line), his 1948 net profit from operations, his family’s real estate holdings, and his reservations for new trucks. The Court emphasized that under Section 35 of the Public Service Act, its power to modify the Commission’s decision is limited to instances where there is no evidence to reasonably support it, it is contrary to law, or it is without jurisdiction. None of these conditions were present, as the decision was reasonably supported by evidence and not contrary to law. The Court declined to substitute its own findings of fact.