This is a petition for revision in this court of a decision made by the  Public  Service Commission whereby a  certificate of public convenience was granted to Teofilo Bungabong,  on behalf of the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co.  The petitioner in review is the Mindanao Bus Co., which also holds a certificate of public convenience for the operation of  a land transportation service over the same lines included in the  certificate  of the  Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co.

It appears  that  on July 17, 1928,  Teofilo Bungabong  as manager of the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co. presented  a petition before the Public Service Commissior asking for a certificate of public convenience authorizing said company to operate  an autotruck service  over the lines radiating east, south, and west from Cagayan.   This application was accompanied by a letter in which Bunga bong requested that all communications addressed to him during the pendency of the application should be addressed to him at Alburquerque, Bohol.  In disregard of this request, the notice of the date set for the hearing of this petition was addressed to the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co. at  Cagayan, Misamis,  with  the result that Bungabong did not receive the notice in time to enable him to appear at the appointed date.  In view therefore of his non-appearance upon the appointed date, which was August 20, 1928, the Public  Service Commission transferred  the hearing to September 3, 1928,  at the provisional office of the commission at Cebu.  Notice of this action was  again erroneously sent to Cagayan, Misamis, instead of to Alburquerque,  Bohol, with the result that Bungabong again did not  appear.  The petition was accordingly, on  the last- named date, dismissed.  Upon  being  informed of this action, Bungabong, on September 10, asked for a reinstatement of  the petition; and the commission, in view of the facts above-mentioned, reinstated the petition by order of October 4, 1928.

On September 11, 1928, or one day after  Bungabong had filed his  motion for reinstatement of the  petition,  Pedro Diaz, acting on behalf of the Mindanao Bus  Co., filed a petition with the  commission for a certificate of public convenience  authorizing the operation of an autobus line over the same routes covered by the application of the Cagayan-Misamis  Land Transportation Co.  This petition followed the  usual course, and on April 19, 1929,  a  decision was rendered granting the certificate of public convenience to the Mindanao Bus Company.  Action on the prior petition of the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co. was more sluggish, but in the end, on July 7, 1929, the Public Service Commission granted a certificate of public convenience to this company also;

It will thus be seen that while the petition  of the Cagayan-Misamis  Land Transportation Co. was filed with the commission prior to  the date  of the filing  of  the petition of the Mindanao Bus Co., favorable action upon the later petition was taken first.  It will be noted  also  that the petition of the Mindanao Bus Co. was filed in the interval between September 3  and October 4, 1928,  during which period the prior  petition  of the Cagayan-Misamis  Land Transportation Co. was in a state of abatement,  and before it was reinstated.

Upon this state  of facts it is contended for. the appellant, the Mindanao Bus Co., that this company should be considered to have the prior right and that the petition filed by Bungabong should be considered as if it had been first filed on  the date  when reinstatement was  permitted.  Upon the same facts it is further contended that, when the petition of the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co. was reinstated, formal notice should  have been  given to the Mindanao Bus Co,, as a prior applicant, and inasmuch as no notice of such reinstatement was given, the commission had no jurisdiction to grant the reinstated petition.

We  are unable to agree with these contentions. In the first place, priority of application  in the granting of a certificate of public convenience, although to be  considered, is not necessarily a controlling reason for the issuance of the corresponding certificate to the prior applicant.  It has been repeatedly held by public utility regulatory  bodies that the question to be considered in cases  where there are many applications over the same territory is, which applicant or applicants can render the best service, considering the whole territory to be developed and served by the kind of service under consideration and the conditions and qualifications of the respective applicants to furnish the same.  Priority in the making of application does not entitle the applicant to an  absolute monopoly over the route or routes traversed by it.  The priority of application is a factor to be considered, but it  does  not  necessarily control the granting of a certificate of convenience where there are various applications.   (De los Santos vs. Pasay Transportation Co., 54 Phil.,  357.)   The use  of  improved  public  highways for private gain is a permissive use and not a matter of right, and where several companies  are seeking certificates of convenience involving the same service, the  commission will consider whether the public convenience and necessity will be best served by granting certificates of convenience to one particular applicant or to more than one.   (In re Suburban Auto Livery  Co., cited in P. U. R., 1923E, page 524.) It results, therefore, that even  considering the Mindanao Bus Co.  as  the prior applicant, it would not necessarily follow that  it is entitled  to the monopolistic concession sought by it without regard to the rights of other applicants. But, as a matter of fact, we  do  not consider the Mindanao Bus Co.  as  the prior applicant.  Its  competitor, the Cagayan-Misamis Land  Transportation  Co.,  was the prior applicant, and although the petition of the latter company may have suffered  a temporary abatement,  nevertheless the petition was reinstated for sufficient cause, and the Mindanao Bus Co. must be taken to have filed its petition  subject to the contingency of the reinstatement of the petition of  its rival.

Upon the point respecting the necessity for notification to the Mindanao Bus  Co. as a competing applicant, upon the occasion  of the reinstatement of the petition of the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation  Co., we are  of  the opinion that the  rule requiring such notification does not  apply. The prior petitioner in point of fact, the Cagayan-Misamis Land Transportation Co., had a right to prosecute its  petition without giving notice to the petitioner in an application of  later  origin.  But,  even though it might be considered that the Mindanao Bus Co. was entitled to such notice, it appears  that after  the petition of the respondent had  been granted, a motion was made by the Mindanao  Bus Co, for reconsideration, upon the hearing of which  the latter  company,  as opponent,  presented the considerations pertinent to  the alleged conflict of rights.

In conclusion we note that, when the petition  of the respondent was granted, the court imposed as a condition that the certificate fees should be  paid within thirty days from the date of notification of the decision.  It appears, however, that Bungabong did not receive notification of the decision for some time, owing  to the same mistake in the clerical department of the  commission that had  prevented him from receiving prompt notice of the earlier acts of the commission.  But within a few days after notification was received, the dues were promptly paid.

Our conclusion is that the petition for review is not well grounded, and the same is  accordingly dismissed.   So ordered, with  costs against the petitioner.

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

I certify that Justice C. A. Johns voted for the majority opinion. AVANCEÑA, C. J.