1. PUBLIC UTILITY; APPLICANT’S SUFFICIENT ASSETS ESSENTIAL TO GRANTING OF APPLICATION. — Appellant applied for authority to operate an auto-bus service of twenty-six over certain lines. This was opposed by other operators. An associate Commissioner of Public Service, then acting as Commissioner thereof rendered a decision overruling the oppositions and granting in toto appellant’s application which decision was later on concurred in by another associate commissioner of Public Service. Within 30 days granted in said decision, appellant was able to register only eleven of the twenty-six units and sought an extension of time to register the remaining fifteen units, but action on this request was deferred pending resolution of the oppositor’s motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the writer of said decision. A concurring and dissenting opinion was rendered by the other two commissioners modifying said decision, by reducing the authorized equipment from twenty six to twelve, taking into account the sun of P192,000 as initial cost of the 26 units and appellant’s assets which only ranged from P15,130 to P55,000. Appellant sought a review by certiorari of said decision. Held: In addition to P192,000, which is the initial cost of the 26 units applied for by appellant, he would have to establish, operate and maintain a garage and a repair shop, acquire the necessary equipment, spare parts, tires etc; pay the corespondent registration fees, licenses and taxes and defray other incidental expenses. It is thus obvious that appellant assets are grossly insufficient to permit the acquisition, maintenance and adequate operation of said 26 units.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; WHEN SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS OF FACT CAN NOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL. — The question of sufficiency of evidence can not be entertained on appeal by certiorari, in which the conclusions of fact of the Public Service Commission may not be disturbed so long as the same are borne out by same evidence.

This is an appeal by certiorari, taken by Hermogenes Taruc, from a decision of the Public Service Commission.

It appears that, on or about August 21, 1951, Hermogenes Taruc filed therein an application for authority to operate an auto-bus service of twenty-six (26) units over six lines, with the following terminals:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Cabanatuan City — Dagupan City

2. Camiling (Tarlac) — Ilagan (Isabela)

3. Lingayen (Pangasinan) — Jones (Isabela)

4. Manila — Malig (Isabela)

5. Maddela (Nueva Vizcaya) — San Vicente (Cagayan) via two routes, and

6. Lingayen (Pangasinan) — Malig (Isabela) (Petitioner’s brief, p. 1)

Said application was opposed by the Bachrach Motor Co., the Pangasinan Transportation Co. and the Redline Transportation Co. In due course, Hon. Quintin Paredes, Jr., Associate Commissioner of Public Service, then Acting Commissioner thereof — Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo and Senior Associate Commissioner Gabriel P. Prieto, being on leave, at the time — rendered a decision, dated May 22, 1952, overruling said oppositions and granting in toto the aforementioned application of appellant Taruc. Later on, or on June 4, 1952, Senior Associate Commissioner Prieto, who had meanwhile reported for duty, filed an opinion concurring nunc pro tunc in said decision of Associate Commissioner Paredes. Within the 30 days period therein granted, however, appellant was able to register only eleven (11) of the twenty-six (26) units in question, for which reason he sought an extension of time to register the remaining fifteen (15) units. Action upon this request for extension of time was deferred by Commissioner Ocampo, pending resolution of the motions for reconsideration filed in the meantime by said oppositors. Subsequently, on or about October 3, 1952, acting upon said motions for reconsideration, Associate Commissioner Paredes rendered an opinion denying the same and adhering to his original decision. However, Senior Associate Commissioner Prieto rendered a concurring and dissenting opinion, which was concurred in by Commissioner Ocampo, the effect of which concurring and dissenting opinion was to modify the original decision, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) By denying petitioner’s application as regards the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th lines above mentioned;

(b) By limiting the fifth line — which was originally Maddela (Nueva Vizcaya) — San Vicente (Cagayan) — to Jones (Isabela)-San Vicente (Cagayan); and

(c) By reducing the authorized equipment from twenty-six (26) units to twelve (12) units.

A reconsideration of the decision, as thus amended, having been denied, Taruc now seeks a review, by certiorari, of said amended decision, upon the ground that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library



"The Public Service Commission erred in holding that petitioner does not possess sufficient assets to acquire and operate 26 units authorized him in the original decision.



"The Public Service Commission erred in holding that petitioner adduced insufficient evidence on the lines Camiling-Ilagan, Lingayen-Jones, Maddela-San Vicente, and Manila-Malig, to warrant the grant of a certificate of public convenience over the same.



"The Public Service Commission erred in modifying its decision dated May 22, 1952."cralaw virtua1aw library

Referring to the first assignment of error, Taruc testified that the 26 units applied for by him would cost P182,000.00 for the chasis alone, and P10,400 for the bodies, or the total sum of P192,400; and that he had only P7,000 in cash, in addition to the following real property

Area and Kind of Land Market Value Assessed

Estimated by Value

Appellant

(a) Twenty-two (22) Hectares of tobacco

land in Santiago, Isabela P22,000.00 P2,130.00

(b) Ten (10) hectares of riceland in

the same place 10,000.00 2,000.00

(c) Five and a half (5 1/2) hectares of

riceland in Muñoz, Nueva Ecija 8,000.00 2,000.00

(d) Ten (10) hectares of riceland in

Mayantoc, Tarlac 8,000.00 2,000.00

All together these lands, according to petitioner’s testimony, are worth P48,000, although its aggregate assessed value is P8,130 only. If we add to these sums the P7,000 in cash in appellant’s possession, the result is that his assets range from P15,130. to P55,000, if his testimony were taken on its face value. In addition, however, to the sum of P192,000 which is the initial cost of the 26 units applied for by appellant, he would have to establish, operate and maintain a garage and a repair shop, acquire the necessary equipment, spare parts, tires, etc., pay the corresponding registration fees, licenses and taxes, and defray other incidental expenses. It is thus obvious that appellant’s assets are grossly insufficient to permit the acquisition, maintenance and adequate operation of said 26 units. Indeed, it would appear that although, before the institution of this case, appellant had been authorized to operate other lines, he eventually failed to do so, in violation of the certificate of public convenience issued in his favor. What is more, even the lines which the amended decision appealed from had authorized him to operate, were subsequently abandoned by him according to a petition for cancellation filed by one of the oppositors herein, which is still pending determination in the Public Service Commission. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is clearly untenable.

This renders it unnecessary to discuss the other assignments of error made in petitioner’s brief. Suffice it to add that said assignments of error hinge on whether the services being rendered by duly authorized operators of public utility in the four lines which were denied to appellant and in a portion of the fifth line eliminated by the amended decision satisfy the requirements of public convenience or public interest. Said amended decision impliedly resolved this question in the affirmative. Upon the other hand, appellant does not deny the existence in the record of competent evidence in support of said conclusion. In effect, however, he now assails the sufficiency of the aforementioned evidence. Such question can not be entertained on appeal by certiorari, in which the conclusions of fact of the Public Service Commission which can not be disturbed so long as the same are borne out by some evidence, as in the case at bar.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.