GR L 4312; (August, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4312; August 15, 1951
PASCUA and MOURISE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. (As successor in interest to Manuel R. Pascua and Tito G. Edurico), oppositor-appellant, vs. ELINO CONCEPCION, applicant-appellee.
FACTS
Both the appellant (Pascua and Mourise Transportation Co., Inc.) and the appellee (Elino Concepcion) are post-war TPU (Temporary Public Utility) operators on the same route between San Francisco del Monte and Quiapo via España Street in Manila. They each began operations under an emergency or temporary certificate set to expire in 1948 and later applied for permanent certificates. The appellant also applied for and was granted an increase in its vehicular equipment from 5 to 9 units. After obtaining its permanent certificate and increase in units, the appellant opposed the appellee’s application for a permanent certificate, arguing that the continuation of the appellee’s operation on the same line would result in ruinous competition. The Public Service Commission decided in favor of the appellee and granted him a permanent certificate. The appellant appeals this portion of the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting the appellee a permanent certificate of public convenience for TPU service on the line between San Francisco del Monte and Quiapo via España Street, despite the appellant’s claim of ruinous competition and an alleged lack of evidence on the volume of traffic.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the grant of the permanent certificate to the appellee. The appellant’s own witness, Dr. Manuel R. Pascua, testified that based on his daily observation, buses on the line were always full during rush hours and sometimes passengers were left behind. Furthermore, the appellant, in its own application for additional units, had represented to the Commission that there was plenty of traffic on the line and could not now contradict that representation. The Court noted that both operators had risked capital by starting with temporary certificates and, despite competition, both had prospered enough to seek permanent status. With traffic volume apparently increasing, as evidenced by the appellant’s near-doubling of its units, it would be discriminatory to grant one operator permanent status with increased trips while allowing the other’s operation to expire. The decision was affirmed with costs against the appellant.