GR L 4816; (March, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-4816; March 23, 1954
SURIGAO EXPRESS CO., INC., petitioner, vs. ADOLFO C. MORTOLA, respondent.
FACTS
On September 29, 1950, Adolfo C. Mortola applied to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to operate an auto-truck service on specified lines in the provinces of Agusan and Surigao. The Surigao Express Company and the Agusan-Surigao Bus Company, existing operators, filed written opposition, arguing there was no public demand for increased facilities and that granting the application would cause ruinous competition. The Commission authorized the justice of the peace of Cabadbaran to receive the testimony of witnesses via depositions, which was done on January 3, 1951. Mortola presented evidence of his financial condition and oral testimony that the oppositor’s buses were insufficient, often leaving passengers stranded or causing overcrowding. The Surigao Express Company presented contrary evidence, indicating low passenger capacity utilization. On April 24, 1951, the Commission granted Mortola’s application. Surigao Express Company petitioned for review.
ISSUE
Whether the findings of fact by the Public Service Commission, based on evidence received by a designated justice of the peace, are reasonably supported by the evidence of record.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the Commission had the authority to assign a justice of the peace to hear the evidence under Rule 18, and no objection was raised by the oppositors during the proceeding. The Court further ruled that it cannot substitute its own findings of fact for those of the Commission unless the Commission’s findings are not reasonably supported by the evidence. Upon review, the Court found that the entire evidence submitted afforded more than reasonable support to the Commission’s findings, which included: a great number of passengers and freight on the applied lines; increased population and student traffic; insufficient and often overloaded existing transportation; and the applicant’s sufficient capital. Costs were imposed against the petitioner.