BUAN v. PAMPANGA BUS CO.

and LA MALLORCA
(1956)
Petitioner: ESTATE OF FLORENCIO P. BUAN,
Respondent: PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY AND LA MALLORCA
Ponente: Reyes, A.,J.
DOCTRINE:
The law, vesting the Public Service Commission with the power of
supervision and control over public transportation, has also clothed it with
broad discretion in the exercise of that power. As such, the court cannot
intervene except if there is a clear case of abuse. Thus, the findings of the
Commission are binding upon the Courts.
FACTS:
1. The estate of Florencio P. Buan, is an authorized bus operator along
various lines in central and northern Luzon, with authority to operate 8 autotrucks along the Manila-Bagac line and 11 along the Moron Dinalupihan
line.
2. Allegedly because of resolutions by municipal councils and petitions by
civic and labor groups, Buan applied in four cases in the Commission for
certificates of public convenience to operate additional trips between Manila
and various municipalities and barrios in Bataan, with a total of 83 units
distributed.
3. The Pampanga Bus Company (PBC) and La Mallorca (LM) opposed
alleging that they are authorized to operate and are actually operating on
the lines applied for and that the additional services applied for are
superfluous, will not promote public interest in a proper and suitable
manner, and will result in cut-throat and ruinous competition
4. The Public Service Commission (Commission) denied the applications of
Buan (in all 4 cases) stating that the services provided by PBC and LM
were adequate and sufficient for the actual needs of the public and that the
grant of the applications would only result in unnecessary or wasteful
competition. MR denied, thus this petition to review.
ISSUES: WON the services provided by PBC and LM as well as Buan are
already adequate and sufficient to serve public needs
RULING + RATIO: YES, no need for additional trips by Buan
1. Each parties presented their pieces of evidence.

Buan
14 witnesses, resolutions of municipal councils, petitions, inability of
the PBC to register its authorized number of units, and noncompliance on the part of PBC and LM with the terms of their
certificates by suppressing trips on hours when they do not expect a
sufficient number of passengers
PBC and LM
6 witnesses + documentary proof to show that they were rendering
service in accordance with the requirements of their certificates and
that the needs of the traveling public were being adequately served
2. The Commission ordered a survey of the passenger traffic on the lines
applied for stationing 2 checkers/ agents to observe and report the situation
in Bataan (bus terminal). Result: not warrant additional service; 2
companies operate in accordance with certificates
3. The findings are supported by more than substantial evidence and are
therefore binding upon this Court. The Court is not required to examine the
proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of
evidence really justifies the decision below.
4. The law, vesting the Public Service Commission with the power of
supervision and control over public transportation, has also clothed it with
broad discretion in the exercise of that power. As such, the court cannot
intervene except if there is a clear case of abuse
The Commission sent 2 checkers to inspect the situation to aid in the
determination of whether or not additional service is needed by the public.
On the basis of the information obtained, the Commission was able to
conclude that there was indeed no need for additional services. Absent
proof that the Commission abused its discretion/powers, Court respects
Commissions judgment.
DISPOSITION: Wherefore, the decision below is affirmed, with costs
against the petition.
NOTE: Petitioners contended that 2 respondent companies were servicing
unauthorized trips, the routes which Buan was applying for. Since Buan
applied for these routes, his applications should therefore be applied.
However the court said that the unauthorized trips passed through its other
authorized routes. The court does recognize however that the 2 respondent
companies are liable for some disciplinary action but such ground is not
enough to authorize additional trips to Buan since the Commission already
found that there is already more than adequate service for the said trips.