Facts:
Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab, Inc. v. Edmundo L. Castelo, G.R. No. L-13910. May 30, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court. On March 7, 1957, Edmundo L. Castelo (applicant) filed with the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of public convenience to operate ten (10) taxicab units in the City of Cabanatuan and to all points, barrios and municipalities in the Island of Luzon. The existing grantee, Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab, Inc. (oppositor), which already held authorization to operate ten units in that territory, opposed the application on grounds that its current service sufficed for public needs and that permitting another operator would cause ruinous competition; it also asserted a preferential right as the incumbent operator.The Commission conducted a hearing at which oppositor presented six witnesses and documentary exhibits showing that its taxi operations in Cabanatuan were operating at a loss. Testimony emphasized visible empty cabs, competition from calesas, jitneys and buses, and low per-cab daily earnings. Oppositor’s branch manager admitted that only seven of its ten units were actually in operation due to repairs and that some drivers reported very low daily receipts.
Applicant presented testimonial and documentary endorsements from the Cabanatuan Jaycees and the Cabanatuan City Council and witnesses who described a substantial local population (including seven colleges with many night students), multiple government offices and organizations, insufficient and unsuitable service from the oppositor’s older vehicles, and lack of transportation late at night and for barrio trips. The Commission, by a two-to-one vote, found that there was need for additional taxicab facilities in Cabanatuan and granted Castelo a certificate to operate six (6) taxicab units to supplement oppositor’s service.
Dissatisfied, Manila Yellow Taxi-Cab,...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Public Service Commission err as a matter of fact in finding a need for additional taxicab service in Cabanatuan?
- If additional service were warranted, did the incumbent operator have a preferential right to be granted the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)