G.R. No. L-9185, December 27, 1958
BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, ET AL., petitioners, vs. LAGUNA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, respondent.

FACTS

The Laguna Transportation Company (respondent) filed an application with the Public Service Commission for three additional round trips from Pagsanjan, Laguna to Manila and three additional round trips from Batangas Piers to Manila. The application was opposed by the Batangas Transportation Company and the Laguna Tayabas Bus Company (petitioners). The oppositors argued that their existing bus services on these lines were already more than sufficient to meet public demand. The Commission, after considering the evidence from both parties, granted the respondent’s application for the additional trips. The petitioners sought a review of this decision.
The evidence presented by the applicant (respondent) showed: passengers at Pagsanjan had difficulty getting accommodation as buses from farther south were already full upon arrival; residents desired early morning trips to Manila; the applicant’s own buses were full upon departure from Pagsanjan; other operators like Biñan Transportation Company had abandoned certain lines and Maria Ruiz had reduced her units, decreasing available trips; at Batangas Pier, passengers from Mindoro boats could not be accommodated, and residents from other Batangas towns had difficulty boarding buses already full from points farther south.
The oppositors (petitioners) presented evidence showing they were rendering adequate service, that traffic volume did not warrant an increase as per their checkers’ reports, and that they had suffered losses on these lines. They also alleged the applicant was “cutting” its trips from Batangas Pier to only the Batangas poblacion.
The Commission found the applicant’s evidence sufficient to demonstrate public need. It noted the reduction in trips due to other operators abandoning or reducing services, that only three operators served the Batangas Pier-Manila line with long intervals between trips, and that the applicant’s buses did proceed to the pier. It concluded there was room for the additional trips.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting Laguna Transportation Company’s application for additional round trips on the Pagsanjan-Manila and Batangas Pier-Manila lines, despite opposition based on claims of adequate existing service, financial losses, and cut-throat competition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s findings of fact, when reasonably supported by evidence, will not be disturbed. The applicant presented sufficient testimonial and documentary evidence, including a municipal resolution and a public petition, to establish public necessity and convenience for the additional trips. The checkers’ reports submitted by the oppositors were not conclusive as they did not cover the specific early morning trips authorized and did not account for passengers boarding or alighting outside the check points. Furthermore, the oppositors’ own applications for new or increased services on concurrent lines contradicted their claim of insufficient traffic. The Court found no reason to substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on this factual matter. The petition was denied, with costs against the petitioners.