This appeal is for the review of the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission in cases Nos. 17059, 19364, 20343, 20747, and 20883  thereof,  with reference to the exploitation of the new route between Dolores, Province of Tayabas, and San Pablo, Province of Laguna.

In the first four cases,  the  following applications were filed to operate on said line:

Orlanes & Banaag Transportation  Co., on August 14, 1928;

Hilario Calabia, on April 17, 1929;

LagunaTayabas Bus Co., on August 16, 1929; and Agapito Ramos, on September 24, 1929.

The application filed by Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co. was opposed by Hilario Calabia, Laguna-Tayabas  Bus Co., and Agapito Ramos.

Hilario Calabia's application was opposed by the Orlanes & Banaag  Transportation Co., and the  Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.

The application of the Laguna-Tayabas  Bus  Co.  was opposed by  Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., Hilario Calabia, and Agapito Ramos.

And Agapito Ramos' application was opposed by Orlanes & Banaag Transportation  Company, and the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.

At the hearing held  on  the 23d of January, 1930, opponent Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Company withdrew its  opposition to Hilario Calabia's application, making the following  statement:

"QUIOGUE. In the case of Mr.  Hilario Calabia, the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation  Company withdraws its opposition with reference to the  San Pablo-Dolores line."

After the evidence had all been adduced by the interested parties, the commission rendered its judgment on April 29, 1930,  with reference to said San Pablo-Dolores line in the following  terms:

"For a better  understanding of the line between San Pablo," Laguna, and Dolores, Tayabas, the portion designated No. 4  on the drawing X indicates the route which is intended to be  operated, and which is at present a third-class road, but is in course of reconstruction.

"At the beginning of  these  proceedings, the  respective counsel recorded the following agreement:

" 'Lockwood. Your Honor: I wish to make a suggestion. I propose that we begin right now to adduce evidence with reference to the  San Pablo-Dolores line, for which there are four different applicants.  On this line, I think, each applicant  should adduce his evidence as he thinks best.

" 'Judge. That  portion may be dealt with.

" 'Lockwood. To begin with we are agreed,  and I ask that it be made a matter of record,  that the public convenience demands a regular operation as soon as the road is opened to motor traffic for the transportation of passengers and freight along this road.

" 'Harvey. Agreed.
" 'Carpena. Agreed.
'"Quiogue.  Agreed.'

"Since  the public  necessity and convenience of the proposed operation has been  admitted by counsel for the parties in the first four cases above entitled, the commission shall now proceed to determine which of these four operators has the best right to  operate on the line  applied for, in accordance with the principles established by this commission and the doctrines of the  Supreme Court.

*     *       *        *        *          *         *
"The (last) line or route applied for in  this case is that between San  Pablo  and Dolores, via the  barrio of Sta. Elena. This is at present  a third-class road, but repairs are being made to convert it into a first-class road.  This route starts at San Pablo runs through the barrios of San Ignacio and Sta. Elena, and ends at the town of Dolores, Province of Tayabas.   This line has also been applied for in case No. 19364, above entitled, by Hilario Calabia.

"There is no doubt but that the Orianes & Banaag Transportation Company has the right of priority along this line.

"It is alleged that  inasmuch  as  Hilario Calabia is an irregular operator, he is entitled to convert his service into a regular run in accordance with the regulations of the commission.  This  is true; but the line applied  for does not come within Hilario Calabia's irregular  service, and that is why the decision of June 5, 1929, denied the petition  to convert his irregular into a regular service.   Hilario Calabia has at no time been an operator along this line or route, San  Pablo to Dolores; he applied for it for the first time in this case No. 19364.

"Agapito Ramos, in case No. 20747 also makes application to operate on this Dolores-San Pablo line, via the new road, alleging that it is an extension of his autobus service; but prior to Agapito Ramos'  application, this route had already been applied for by the Orianes  & Banaag Transportation Company and the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company for a combined half-hour service by the two opposing companies.

"Agapito Ramos at present operates  from  Dolores  to San  Pablo along the old road to Tiaong, but has never operated along the new road from San Pablo to Dolores, via the barrio of San Ignacio and Sta. Elena.  Then  the Orianes & Banaag Transportation Company in case No. 17059 and the Laguna-Tayabas Bus  Company in case No. 20343 applied  for a combined service on this new line at the same time that Agapito Ramos in his later application, or case No.  20747, applied for the right to operate on this new line  from San Pablo to Dolores.

"Inasmuch as the applications of the Orianes & Banaag Transportation Company  and the Laguna-Tayabas  Bus Company, offering to  render a combined half-hour service were filed first, they are entitled to preference and, consequently, this line must be adjudicated equally to the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Company and the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company, and  therefore Agapito Ramos' application must be denied.

"The  operation  proposed  by Agapito Ramos  is not  an extension of his line.  Neither is the proposed  operation of Orlanes  &  Banaag  Transportation Company  and  the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company an extension of  their line, because these  three companies operate from San Pablo to Dolores via the old road which leads to Tiaong.

"This  refers to a  new route or  line,  which has been applied  for by these three operators in their  respective proceedings.

"By virtue of the foregoing, after due consideration of the. evidence and the facts established in these proceedings, in accordance with the established principles of this commission and the doctrines of the Honorable Supreme Court; and taking into account the  public necessity and  convenience, and that the establishment  of the said companies and the authority given them to engage  in their business shall adequately and conveniently promote the public interests, we hereby issue the following:

"ORDER
"*  *   *  The line San Pablo-Dolores, via  San Ignacio, Sta. Elena, etc.,  is  hereby  adjudicated to the  Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Company and Laguna-Tayabas Bus Company for  a combined half-hour service to be rendered by both companies, according to a schedule to  be presented to this commission on or before the period of thirty days from the date of the publication of this decision; as a consequence of which the oppositions filed by Hilario Calabia and Agapito  Ramos are dismissed, and therefore their applications to operate on this route are also  denied."

The appellant contends that the commission erred in not holding that the applicant Hilario Calabia has a preferred right  to operate on the San Pablo-Dolores line, for the reason that this being a new line, preference must be given to the first applicant in point of time.  And he contends that while the  Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co.  was the first to present an  application,  it has, nevertheless, withdrawn its  opposition to the  appellant's application in favor of the latter, who is therefore entitled to the  certificate  of  public convenience in justice and equity.  The appellant's contention is untenable considering that in withdrawing its opposition  to the appellant's application, the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co. did not withdraw its right  to prosecute its  own application  which was filed before the appellant's.

The appellant complains that the commission has granted the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.'s petition to operate on the line in question together with the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co. notwithstanding the fact that the application of the  Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. was filed after that of Hilario Calabia.  We believe the resolution  of the com- mission to be well founded.

A historical account of the working agreement between the two companies to coordinate their operations  in the Provinces of Laguna and Tayabas, establishing an alternate half-hour service along their routes,  is given in the brief submitted by counsel for the appellee, the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co.  The  record  shows  that  in 1927 the  Batangas Transportation  Co.  and Cayetano  Orlanes applied practically at the same time for certificates of public convenience to operate their auto-busses on fixed time schedules between the main points of the Provinces of Laguna and Tayabas. Their applications were approved  by the  Public Service Commission in  a joint  decision in  1928.  Later  on the Batangas Transportation Co. transferred all its rights and interests, including its certificate of public convenience for said Provinces  of Laguna and Tayabas, to the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., and Cayetano  Orlanes  also organized a corporation, the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co. to which he transferred all  his rights as a common carrier. By a mutual agreement, and with the approval of the Public Service  Commission, the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. and the Orlanes  & Banaag Transportation Co.  coordinated  their service in the Provinces of Laguna and Tayabas, ertablish- ing along all  their  routes a regular alternate half-hour service.  At present the  two  companies, the  Orlanes  & Banaag and the Laguna-Tayabas, operate alternately every thirty minutes between San Pablo and Dolores via Tiaong. When the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co. filed  an application to  operate a half-hour service on the new road between San Pablo and Dolores, said  company proposed to the Laguna-Tayabas  Bus  Co. to operate  jointly  with  itself a half-hour  service on the same route and under the  same conditions.  This explains the allegation in the application of the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., and in its opposition" to the applications of Hilario Calabia and Agapito Ramos, to the effect that the Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., the first applicant, had offered to share  with the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. regularly its time schedule.  This being so, and  considering  the  economic  conditions of  the two companies, the facilities which they  enjoy for  furnishing the public a satisfactory service, better than the other applicants, we believe the commission did  right in granting the certificate of public  convenience to said two companies to operate on the new Dolores-San Pablo line.

The appellant  also  complains  that the  commission has not authorized him to operate on the line in question,  when according to the regulations of the commission, an irregular operator, as the appellant, is entitled to become a regular operator.  Such a right, however, exists only with reference to the line  on which said irregular  carrier operates, and not with regard to  a new route, such as that  in dispute among the  four  applicants,  in the above-numbered cases.

The important question in this case is that raised in the memorandum filed by the appellant after the oral argument before this court.   In said memorandum the appellant says: "The only question we desire to raise for the consideration of this Honorable Court is whether, under the circumstances surrounding this case, priority in the filing of the application is not to be taken into account, and the application is denied on the ground that the route applied for is not included in the irregular operation.'  This question has been decided by this court in the case of De los Santos vs. Pasay Transportation Co.  (54 Phil., 357),  where the court said:

"The priority of an application for permission to operate public auto-busses on public roads is an element to be considered, but  is not  ordinarily of sufficient importance  to control  the granting of  a certificate of convenience,  and when there are various  applications, the  Public  Service Commission is authorized to determine which of the applicants can best meet the requirements of the public convenience."

In  the  decision of said case,  the  case  of Sohngen  vs. Public Utilities Commission (115 Ohio St., 449) was cited with approval, in which the court said:

"'It  is contended  that  the   commission should have granted the application of the Traction Company because it was filed some time prior to that of King Bros.  Such claim is not well founded.  The mere filing of the application does not entitle the applicant to any pre-emption of the route or territory which it traverses.

" 'The question to be determined under such circumstances is one  calling for the sound judgment and discretion  of the commission, and where at the time of the hearing it has before it  the applications of various transportation companies covering the same routes, or routes traversing and serving the same territory, it is authorized to determine which of the applicants can best meet the  requirements of the public convenience and necessity, and where it does not affirmatively appear from  the record that it has  acted unreasonably or unlawfully, its order will be affirmed.'"

Section 35 of Act No. 3108 only confers jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to review any order of the Public Service Commission, and to modify or set aside such order when it clearly, appears that there was no evidence before the commission to support reasonably such order, or that the same was  without the jurisdiction of the commission.  In the present case, we believe that the evidence presented to the commission  reasonably supports the decision appealed from.

Furthermore,  under the provisions of section 15,  paragraph  (i), of Act No. 3108, as amended, the Public Service Commission is authorized to issue a  certificate of public convenience to the applicant that can best comply with the requirements of the public convenience, to the effect that the operation of said public utility and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner.  And  unless it is shown that the commission has abused  such power, which does not appear in this instance, its decision cannot be reversed or modified.

Wherefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission, here appealed, must be and  is,, hereby affirmed, with costs against the  appellant.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C.  J.,  Johnson,  Street,  Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and  Villa-Real, JJ., concur.