G.R. No. L-4315 July 9, 1952
BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., owners-operators of the “Rural Transit,” petitioner, vs. ENCARNACION ELCHICO VDA. DE FERNANDO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., operating as “Rural Transit,” is a long-time holder of a permanent certificate of public convenience to operate buses between Manila and various towns, including the lines Manila-Echague and Manila-Ilagan. Respondent Encarnacion Elchico Vda. de Fernando, as successor to her deceased husband, operated under an emergency certificate on several lines, including Manila-Echague and Manila-Ilagan. She filed an amended application for a regular certificate to continue her existing services and to increase her equipment and trips on these lines, specifically seeking additional units for Manila-Echague and Manila-Ilagan. Petitioner opposed this application. During the hearing, the parties agreed, with Commission approval, to have the Public Service Commission appoint checkers at strategic points (Bayombong, Santiago, Ilagan) to record passenger traffic. This checking lasted eight days before being stopped due to threats of bodily harm to the checkers. The compiled data showed buses of the three regular operators carried only one-third of their capacity. Petitioner claimed the decision on the application should depend solely on this checking result, while respondent and the Commission asserted it should also consider other evidence on record. The Commission, after examining the evidence and its records, granted the respondent a regular certificate authorizing one daily round trip on both the Manila-Echague and Manila-Ilagan lines, finding public necessity and convenience justified the increase.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting respondent a regular certificate of public convenience with increased trips on the Manila-Echague and Manila-Ilagan lines, based on its evaluation of the evidence, including but not limited to the eight-day checking data.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the Commission did not err in granting the certificate. The agreement between the parties regarding the reliance on the checking results was unclear due to a missing transcript, but regardless, the best evidence of traffic volume is actual checking data. However, the Commission validly considered the checking data as only partial evidence, explaining that the eight-day period was abnormal due to dissident activity and curfews, which suppressed travel. The Commission also properly relied on other evidence, including its inspector’s report indicating heavy traffic (e.g., petitioner’s unauthorized early morning trips with fully loaded buses), the existence of “colorum” trucks diverting passengers, the inability of the Luzon Bus Line (outside Commission jurisdiction) to be relied upon for public need, and petitioner’s own failure to operate its full pre-war authorized fleet despite increased post-war transportation demands. The Commission, in the exercise of its administrative discretion, was justified in finding public necessity and convenience warranted the increased service.