Title
Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. vs. Mendiola
Case
G.R. No. L-19558
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1963
Petitioner sought new trial due to lost exhibits; Supreme Court denied, citing sufficient respondent evidence and no proof exhibits were disregarded.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-19558)

Factual Background

The case revolves around the petitioner, La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Company, Inc., which faced a challenge concerning the loss of specific exhibits during the proceedings before the Public Service Commission. These exhibits, identified as Exhibits D, D-1, D-1-a, D-1-b, D-1-c, and D-1-d, contained observation reports concerning motor vehicles for hire operating along the Guagua-San Fernando line. The petitioner argues for the setting aside of the decision from the Public Service Commission and seeks a remand for a new trial due to the impossibility of reconstituting the lost evidence.

Nature of the Evidence

The lost exhibits were critical as they aimed to rebut the evidence presented by the respondent, Cirilo D. Mendiola. The reports documented various operational aspects of jitneys and buses on the designated route, including vehicle plate numbers, passenger loads, and the travel directions observed by the witness, Pineda. This information was essential in supporting the petitioner's position against the respondent's claims.

Commission's Decision

Despite the lost exhibits, the Public Service Commission established certain facts, including the operation of ten jitneys and six buses on the aforementioned line, the presence of daily commuters, and the inadequacy of the existing number of vehicles to meet passenger demand. The Commission concluded that the appellant was financially capable of operating the proposed service. These determinations formed the basis of its decision, which the petitioner sought to challenge.

Judicial Reasoning

The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not within its authority to re-evaluate the conflicting evidence put forth during the Public Service Commission's deliberations. Instead, the court's role is limited to verifying whether there exists substantial evidence to support the Commission's conclusions. The absence of the specific evidence that was lost did not negate the validity of the remaining evidence considered by the Commission, particularly si

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.