1939 1948
Manila 623,492 983,906
Quezon City 39,013 107,977
Rizal City 55,161 88,728
Caloocan 38,820 55,208
Makati 33,530 41,335
Mandaluyong 18,200 26,309
San Juan del Monte 18,870 31,493
——— ————
Total 827,086 1,337,956
" (b) That the volume of business has also increased in great proportion, ’con la probabilidad de que Manila se convierta en emporio comercial en el Extremo Oriente’ (Halili v. Ice & Cold Storage Industries of the Philippines, R. G. Nos. 336-343).
"(c) That the University of the Philippines has already transferred to its present site in Quezon City, which may be followed by other institutions of learning now in Manila; that Quezon City will also be the seat of the National Government in the near future, and this will necessarily mean the expansion of the taxicab service and other means of transportation to said City;
"(d) That the taxicabs render a service different from that rendered by the autobuses, the former being for individual transportation, while the latter is for mass transportation in general.
"(e) That the lack of taxicabs is keenly felt in the City of Manila, especially on certain hours of the day, in spite of the fact that at present there are 1,759 taxicabs actually operating. This fact has been testified to also by the Chief, Motor Vehicles Office, Mr. Primo Villar, and by the Chief of the Traffic Division of the Manila Police Department, Major Frank C. Young."cralaw virtua1aw library
And on the basis of these findings the Commission made the following conclusion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Considering the above established facts and the investments made by the post-war operators who furnished the taxicab service which pre- war operators failed to render, the granting of regular or permanent certificates to the present holders of the so-called temporary certificates and to some of the new applicants or prospective operators is justified."cralaw virtua1aw library
Section 35 of the Public Service Act provides that the Supreme Court may modify or set aside any order, ruling or decision. Following this legislative mandate this Court in reviewing an order or decision of the Commission has consistently declared that it will not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission unless it clearly appears that there is no evidence reasonably to support such order or decision. In the present case, respondents’ evidence tends to show that there is real need for more taxicabs if public convenience in the city of Manila and suburbs is properly to be served. To a certain extent this is contradicted by petitioners’ proof. But in our opinion the evidence preponderates in respondents’ favor, and in any event we cannot say that there was no proof before the Commission reasonably to support the appealed decision.
Starting with the assumption that the appealed decision grants permanent certificates to post-war operators, the petitioners question the jurisdiction or authority of the Commission to issue such certificates on the basis of what they call "emergency conditions." But the assumption is erroneous, for the decision expressly states that those certificates "shall be valid and subsisting only for a period of fifteen (15) years counted from January 1, 1949." In other words, though the operators have asked that their temporary certificates be converted into permanent ones, the Commission has merely extended the life of those certificates for a period of 15 years from the date of their expiration. Being for a limited period only, the certificates cannot be considered permanent. And as to the expediency and justice of prolonging the life of these certificates, there can hardly be any dispute, for aside from the fact that the Commission has found, on the basis of evidence presented, that there is further necessity for their continuance if public convenience is to be adequately served, there is the equal need of doing equity to those who have risked capital to render the service which those who were called upon to do so were not disposed or were not in a position to supply. As was said by this Court in the case of Malate Taxicab and Garage Company v. Public Service Commission, (88 Phil., 539), where this very question came up for determination:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It would seem a matter of simple justice, in the light of their past performance, of the enormous increase of population of Manila and neighboring cities and municipalities, and of the encouragement given them by the Commission, thank to the failure or inability of the pre- war operators to supply normal needs, that the post-war operators should not now be left in the lurch. They had ’answered the call of service for the convenience of the public,’ at a time when, in the words of the appellant, ’the supply (of cars and taxi meters) was very meager and limited,’ when ’everything was priced at a premium,’ when ’new cars could be obtained only in the so-called Black Market.’ Whatever the reasons for the pre-war operators’ refusal or inability to resume full operation during the acute shortage of transportation facilities, the investments of the post-war, small operators deserve protection, at least as much as those who claim to have lost heavily as a result of the war. At the most, the Commission does not appear to have acted arbitrarily in issuing regular certificates of public convenience to these operators."cralaw virtua1aw library
Anent the third ground of attack, which refers to the increase of equipment for both pre-war and post-war operators, the Commission has also found from the evidence "that the number of taxicabs presently being operated in Manila is not sufficient to meet the needs of the traveling public," so that the increase of equipment is in order, the only point to be determined being the number of units that should be authorized in addition to those actually operated. There can of course be no fixed formula for determining with mathematical precision the number of additional taxicabs needed so that in the determination of that point a great deal must necessarily be left to the judgment and experience of the Commission. Making use of that discretion the Commission has estimated the additional units needed as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The population of Manila and the adjoining cities and municipalities before the war was 827,086 while the number of taxicabs then in operation was approximately 1,200 out of the 1,356 units authorized the then existing ten operators. After the war, the population has increased to 1,337,956 with approximately 1,759 taxicabs in actual operation. In view of the great increase in population of Manila and the adjoining cities and municipalities, the established need for additional taxicabs and so as to provide for future expansion, the Commission is of the opinion that the number of taxicabs now operated may be raised to two thousand two hundred ninety-eight (2,298) or an increase of five hundred thirty-nine (539) over the present 1,759 units.
"We believe that this increase is a conservative estimate after having taken into consideration the financial capacity of each and every applicant, and the fact that the Commission is in duty bound to preserve and to protect the taxicab business against unnecessary and wasteful competition. If the increase in the number of units herein authorized proves to be insufficient, then applications for further increase may be entertained by the Commission."cralaw virtua1aw library
We find nothing in this estimate that would justify us in substituting our judgment for that of the Commission.
The claim of ruinous competition is not justified by the proof. There is no clear-cut evidence that these petitioners are losing because of the increase of equipment granted to other operators. And the mere fear that ruinous competition will follow such increase deserves scant notice when it is not justified by the evidence.
There is indeed a rule, and a sound one too, that old operators must be protected in their investment so long as they are willing and able to serve the public need in a proper and adequate manner. But this rule is not absolute, for this Court has time and again held that the grant of a certificate or preference to a new operator is in order where the old operators were given a chance to improve or complete their service but have failed to do so. (Jose de la Rosa v. Pedro V. Corpus, 66 Phil. 8; Interprovincial Autobus Company, Inc. v. Lubaton, 89 Phil., 516.)
The record shows and it is not disputed that present petitioners have all been given ample opportunity to complete the equipment which they were authorized to operate. The original period of six months given to them for that purpose was extended several times, the last extension being until September 30, 1948. In all, the total period granted was about three years. They would make it appear that their failure to complete their equipment was due either to the difficulty of acquiring taxicabs or to the fact that they have not yet collected their war damage claims. The first excuse is not convincing, considering that the other pre-war operators as well as the post-war ones have been able to acquire plenty of taxicabs, and the second excuse is no valid ground for depriving the public of a necessary service. Public convenience is the paramount consideration in these matters, and public convenience would not be served if petitioners herein were allowed to play the role of dog in the manger and prevent others from rendering a service which they themselves cannot give.
In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the petitioners.
Paras, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.