Ledesma v. Public Service Commission
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner R.C. Ledesma applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate a passenger and freight jitney service from Banawe and Laong-Laan, Quezon City, to Governor Forbes, Manila, with twenty units. Commissioner Enrique Medina opined that the service could extend to Manila City Hall. Associate Commissioner Gregorio C. Panganiban recommended limiting the service to the corner of Laong-Laan and Governor Forbes, with Commissioner Filomeno C. Kintanar dissenting. Procedural History: The Public Service Commission, with the concurrence of Commissioners Panganiban and Kintanar (dissenting), authorized the operation with ten units, limited to the route from Banawe and Laong-Laan, Quezon City, up to the corner of Laong-Laan and Governor Forbes, Manila. Petitioner sought to modify this decision to align with Commissioner Medina's view, allowing the service to reach Manila City Hall. The Petition: Petitioner R.C. Ledesma filed a petition for review, seeking to modify the decision of the Public Service Commission to approve her application in its entirety, as originally filed, arguing that the limitation imposed sacrificed the interest, comfort, and convenience of the traveling public to protect larger operators.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to modify the decision of the Public Service Commission based on the petitioner's claim that the traveling public's interest was sacrificed. Whether the Public Service Commission committed a reversible error in limiting the authorized route of the petitioner's jitney service.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the respondent Commission dated August 12, 1966. The petition for review was denied, and the costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify the decision of the Public Service Commission: The Court reiterated that its jurisdiction to set aside any order, ruling, or decision of the respondent Commission is predicated on it clearly appearing that there was no evidence before it in support thereof, or that the same is contrary to law, or that it was without the jurisdiction of the Commission, as provided in Section 35 of Commonwealth Act No. 146. The petitioner's plea for modification was found to have no support in this controlling legal provision as authoritatively construed by the Court. The objection raised by the petitioner was deemed factual in character, and the Court consistently considers itself bound by such findings and conclusions of fact unless there is no reasonable support in the evidence of record. The Court emphasized that it is not its role to determine credibility and preponderance of proof, nor to examine the proof de novo, nor to substitute its discretion for that of the Public Service Commission on questions of fact. On whether the Public Service Commission committed a reversible error in limiting the authorized route: The Court found no reversible error in the Commission's decision. The opinion of Commissioner Medina noted that while the lower portion of the applied line was saturated, the upper portion lacked authorized operators. He believed that allowing the service to extend to Quezon Boulevard (Manila)-P. Burgos (City Hall) could be tolerated to avoid inconvenience to the riding public who would otherwise have to transfer jitneys. However, he also cautioned that the number of units should be limited to the minimum necessary to meet the demand. Commissioner Panganiban, whose view ultimately prevailed, concurred that there was no authorized operation on the upper portion of the line, justifying approval for that segment. However, he dissented from extending the service further to City Hall, citing that the portion from Dimasalang to City Hall was already declared saturated, and further grants would aggravate congestion. He noted that numerous jeepneys and buses already provided adequate service from Governor Forbes to City Hall, making it unnecessary to depart from the policy of restricting further entry of public utility vehicles to saturated streets. The Court found the petitioner's contention that the decision sacrificed public interest to protect big operators to be bereft of persuasive force, as the objection was primarily factual and supported by the evidence presented before the Commission.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction to set aside decisions of the Public Service Commission is limited to instances where there is no evidence to support the decision, the decision is contrary to law, or the Commission acted without jurisdiction. Factual findings and conclusions of the Commission, if supported by evidence, are binding on the Supreme Court.