GR L 6075 78; (August, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6075 and 6078; August 31, 1954
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., petitioner, vs. F. F. HALILI and Associate Commissioner, FELICIANO OCAMPO, as Commissioner, and QUINTIN PAREDES, JR., as Associate Commissioner of the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission seeking the cancellation of respondent Fortunato F. Halili’s certificates of public convenience for the Agno-Manila, Bolinao-Manila, and Sta. Cruz-Manila lines, alleging failure to operate and abandonment. During the hearing, petitioner presented evidence that no bus of respondent passed the Embarcadero Toll Gate in Alaminos, Pangasinan after November 1951. Counsel for respondent admitted a partial abandonment of the lines, attributing it to difficulties in obtaining truck tires and spare parts. The Commission, instead of cancelling the certificates, dismissed the complaint and imposed a fine of P200 upon respondent’s offer of compromise. Petitioner appealed, arguing the Commission committed grave abuse of discretion by not cancelling the certificates.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to cancel respondent’s certificates of public convenience and merely imposing a fine for the partial abandonment of service.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court recognized that while voluntary partial abandonment could warrant cancellation under the law, the acute shortage of tires in 1950 and 1951 constituted a circumstance beyond respondent’s control that excused the temporary suspension. The Court noted the absence of evidence showing public prejudice or damage to the petitioner from the suspension, and inferred petitioner’s motive was to eliminate a competitor. Considering the substantial investments involved in securing and operating under such certificates, and the cause of the suspension, the Commission did not abuse its discretion in imposing a fine instead of cancellation.