G.R. No. L-788; October 30, 1947
CEBU TRANSIT COMPANY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS

The petitioner, Cebu Transit Company, Inc., operated a taxicab service in Cebu City and its suburbs under a certificate of public convenience originally issued by the Public Service Commission in 1931. Due to the destruction of the Commission’s records during the war, the petitioner filed an application on December 21, 1945, for the reconstitution of its certificate. After a hearing, the Commission rendered a decision on May 13, 1946, directing the issuance of a reconstituted certificate but imposing a new condition that it “shall be valid and subsisting only for a period of fifteen (15) years.” The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, contending this limitation was imposed without any supporting evidence. The motion was denied after a hearing where the petitioner’s counsel presented no evidence, leading to this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission acted without evidence or in excess of its authority by imposing a 15-year validity period on the reconstituted certificate of public convenience.

RULING

The Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. It held that the Commission had the power to impose such a condition, citing Commonwealth Act No. 454 (approved June 8, 1939), which amended the Public Service Act to authorize the Commission to prescribe that a certificate “shall be valid only for a definite period of time.” This power was upheld as a proper exercise of police power applicable to existing utilities, as established in *Pangasinan Transportation Co. vs. Public Service Commission*. The Court found that evidence reasonably supported the decision. The Commission could consider the facts from the petitioner’s original certificate decisions presented in evidence, along with the results of its own observations and investigations. These investigations were formalized in a Commission memorandum dated July 26, 1939 (approved by the Secretary of Justice on August 23, 1939), which fixed a 15-year duration for taxicab services. The Court cited *Manila Yellow Taxicab Co. vs. Araullo* to affirm the Commission’s power to consider its own observations. Furthermore, the petitioner had an opportunity to present evidence against the 15-year period during the hearing on its motion for reconsideration but chose not to. The Court also noted that the total duration of the petitioner’s service, from the original 1931 issuance to the end of the new 15-year term from 1946, would be nearly thirty years. The separate concurring opinion of Justice Feria emphasized that the fixed periods in the approved memorandum, based on expert study, were presumptively valid and promoted public interest, making a specific hearing on the duration unnecessary unless a deviation from the standard period was sought.