Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23688)
Facts:
Mandbusco, Inc., Mandaluyong Bus Co., Inc., Precilo Camaganacan, Blas Reyes and Anastacio Esmao v. Pablo Francisco, G.R. No. L-23688. April 30, 1970, Supreme Court En Banc, Ruiz Castro, J., writing for the Court.The respondent, Pablo Francisco, applied before the Public Service Commission (PSC) for a certificate of public convenience (CPC) to operate five (5) PUJ jitneys between barrio Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, Rizal and the intersection of Highway 54 and Shaw Boulevard (the “Crossing”) in Mandaluyong, and vice versa. The PSC conducted hearings with notice and publication, during which both the applicant and the oppositors—petitioners Mandbusco, Inc., Mandaluyong Bus Co., Inc., and individual bus operators—offered evidence.
On June 15, 1964 a PSC division of three commissioners granted the respondent’s application, finding that the proposed service would benefit the people of barrio Pinagbuhatan because there was no direct service from that place to the Crossing and that many important establishments lay beyond the Pasig poblacion, requiring Pinagbuhatan residents to take two rides. The PSC’s dispositive language granted the CPC to the respondent after overruling oppositions.
The petitioners moved for reconsideration before the PSC en banc, but their motion was denied. They then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court challenging the PSC’s factual and legal conclusions. Their arguments on the record emphasized three lines: (1) surveys and testimony (by PSC inspector Federico Dantayana and by Arturo Clemente, a bus company president) showed an excess of existing transportation capacity rendering the new service unnecessary; (2) the “old operator rule” and the petitioners’ prior CPCs and investments should protect them from ruinous competition; and (3) the PSC had violated its May 15, 1963 memorandum (and July 22, 1963 supplemental memorandum) urging suspension/withholding of action on applications for certain Manila–suburbs routes.
The Supreme Court reviewed the administrative record. It found Dantayana’s survey covered mainly the second segment of the proposed route (Pasig poblacion to the Crossing) and thus did not measure traffic originating in barrio Pinagbuhatan; Clemente’s figures likewise related mostly to overlapping service on the second segment and did not prove adequate service for the first segment from Pinagbuhatan. The Court also held that the petitioners’ prior CPC to operate buses from Pinagbuhatan to Plaza Miranda did not prove actual use of the authority covering the specific shuttle sought by respondent. The Court addressed the “old operator rule,” the respondent’s fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the PSC’s grant of a certificate of public convenience to Pablo Francisco supported by substantial evidence and therefore binding?
- Does the “old operator rule” bar issuance of the CPC to the respondent for the shuttle service?
- Was the respondent shown to be financially incapable of operating the service such that the CPC should be set aside?
- Did the PSC’s May 15, 1963 memorandum and July 22, 1963 supplemental memorandum prohibit action on the respondent’...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)