GR L 7059; (April, 1956) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7059; April 28, 1956
Laguna Tayabas Bus Co., and Batangas Transportation Co., petitioners, vs. Octaviano Pabalan, respondent.
FACTS
On October 27, 1952, respondent Octaviano Pabalan filed an application with the Public Service Commission to operate an auto-truck service with four jeepneys on the lines: Calamba-College via Los Baños, Calamba-Tanauan (Batangas), and Calamba-Canlubang (Laguna). Petitioners Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. and Batangas Transportation Co., existing operators on the lines, opposed the application. They argued that they were already operating more than enough buses, that several other operators had been granted certificates on the routes, and that granting a new certificate would create ruinous competition. After hearing, the Public Service Commission overruled the opposition and granted Pabalan’s certificate of public convenience, finding him a financially capable Filipino citizen and that the service would promote public convenience. The Commission found evidence that existing trucks were often filled to capacity, leaving many passengers unaccommodated, particularly noting heavy passenger volume due to a military camp (Camp Vicente Lim) and the Canlubang Estate. Petitioners appealed, contending the grant would create ruinous competition, that there was no need for the service, and that they should have been given preference to increase their own units on the lines.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting the certificate of public convenience to respondent Octaviano Pabalan.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s findings of fact, based on the evidence presented, should not be disturbed. The evidence reasonably supported the Commission’s conclusion that existing transportation services were inadequate to meet public need, particularly for local service, and that public convenience and necessity would be served by the new service. The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim of ruinous competition, as the Commission’s factual findings indicated a need for additional service. The Court also declined to entertain the petitioners’ belated contention that they should have been given preference to increase their own service, as this issue was not raised during the hearing before the Commission.