This is a petition filed by the Aleosan Transportation Co., Inc.,  to review the  decision rendered by the Public Service Commission on August 31, 1935, denying the application for a  permit to increase its services on its present lines Iloilo-Leon via San Miguel, Oton or Tigmauan; Iloilo-Alimodian  via San Miguel and Oton, and to extend them on the lines Iloilo-San  Jose  (Antique); San Jose-Capiz via Tibiao and Ibajay; Iloilo-Calinog via Zarraga or Janiway; Iloilo-Dumangas via Zarraga or Janiway;  IIoilo-Estancia via Zarraga;  Iloilo-Igbaras;  Iloilo-Tubungan; Iloilo-Maasin;  Iloilo-Lambunao;  and  Capiz-Estancia,  all of the Island  of Panay, with a  thirty-minute time schedule  from 5.30 a. m.  to 5.30 p. m.,  daily, by increasing  the number of trips to  an interval of ten minutes if necessary.

In support of its  petition, the petitioner assigns five  alleged errors as committed by the respondent Public Service Commission in its decision in question, which will be discussed in the course of this decision.

The Public Service Commission, in denying said application, stated as follows:

"The Commission  is not  convinced from the evidence submitted that the increased services applied for by the applicant on his present lines Iloilo-Leon and Iloilo-Alimodian are necessary.

"The applicant claims that there  is a great  need for transportation facilities for  carrying  freight in the territory applied  for as  a result of the refusal of the Panay Autobus Co. to transport heavy  freight in their trucks. The evidence submitted shows, however, that freight is not refused to be transported by the Panay Autobus Company, there being space in the  trucks of said company specially reserved for freight of its  passengers.  If it is the applicant's intention to operate an auto-truck service devoted primarily to  the transportation of freight, it should have filed with this commission an application for  authority to operate TH auto-truck service instead of additional  TPU services."

It is already a settled doctrine of this court, interpreting section 35 of the Public Service Act, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 3316, that this court has jurisdiction to review, modify and set aside decisions and  orders  of the Public Service Commission only when it clearly appears that there is no evidence to reasonably support such  decisions and orders, or when the  case  is without the jurisdiction of the commission.   (Manila Electric Company vs. Balagtas,  58 Philv 429; Ampil vs. Public  Service Commission, 59 Phil., 556; Calabia vs. Orlanes & Banaag  Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 659.)

We have reviewed  all the evidence of record and, although we have found contradictions and differences between that of the  petitioner and that of  the respondents, as the Public Service Commission, after a  careful and conscientious consideration of  the respective merits  thereof, had arrived at the conclusion' that the public necessity and convenience and the interests of the parties do not warrant the increase of services and the extension  of  lines applied for by the petitioner, it is likewise an already settled doctrine of this court not to  modify said conclusions, which we find  to be correct and we adopt for purposes of this decision.   (Ynchausti  Steamship Co.  vs.  Public  Utility  Commissioner and Board of Appeal,  44 Phil.,  363; Mejica vs. Public Utility Commission,  49 Phil., 774;  San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid, 53 Phil, 539;  Manila  Yellow Taxicab Co.  and Aero Taxicab Co.  vs. Danon, 58 Phil.,  75.)

For the foregoing  considerations,  and finding that the errors assigned by the petitioner  in its brief are not well founded, the  appealed decision  of  the Public Service  Commission is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner.  So ordered.

Avancena,  C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.