G.R. No. L-3622 July 26, 1951
INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS COMPANY, INC., petitioner,

vs.
FELIPO C. LUBATON, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Felipe C. Lubaton applied for a regular certificate of public convenience to operate 21 autotrucks for passenger and cargo transportation on the lines Dipolog-Pagadian via Misamis, Dipolog-Sindangan, Dipolog-Dapitan, Dipolog-Plaridel via Calamba, Dipolog-Baliangao via Calamba, and Dipolog-Pinan via Polanco. The petitioner Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. and Mindanao Bus Company, existing operators, opposed the application. After a decision was rendered in favor of the applicant, only Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari. The petitioner presented evidence aiming to show that the grant of a provisional certificate to the respondent caused it losses, that granting a regular certificate would cause ruinous competition, that it had a paid-up capital of P250,000 and reserve funds of P100,000, and that it was prepared to operate additional cars if the Commission found them necessary to meet public need. The Public Service Commission found it proven that there were many passengers along the applied lines who could not be accommodated in the opponents’ cars as they were often fully loaded, that the number of cars operated by the two companies was insufficient, and that there was a real need to increase the number of cars to meet public demand and convenience. It granted the respondent a regular certificate for 12 cars, six of which were already operating under an emergency certificate. After the briefs were filed, the petitioner moved to amend an alleged error in its assignment of errors, claiming an inadvertent omission of three specific lines in the enumeration. The respondent opposed the motion.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting respondent Felipe C. Lubaton a regular certificate of public convenience to operate additional transportation services on the specified lines, over the opposition of the existing operator, Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. A secondary procedural issue is whether the petitioner’s motion to amend its assignment of errors should be granted.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s findings—that the existing service was insufficient, that there was a real need for increased transportation due to population growth, and that the grant of an additional six units would not cause ruinous competition but was necessary for public convenience—were justified by the evidence and there was no reason to modify them. The Court criticized the petitioner for not seeking to increase its own fleet to meet public demand until after the respondent had obtained a provisional certificate, indicating a failure to appreciate its moral obligation to provide better service. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s claim of losses was undermined by its payment of bonuses to employees. On the procedural issue, the Court denied the motion to amend the assignment of errors because the alleged error regarding the three omitted lines was not argued in the brief, and under Rule 53, Section 5, an error not affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter will not be considered unless it is specified in the assignment of errors and duly argued in the brief. Costs were awarded against the petitioner.