This is a petition for  review of a decision rendered by the Public Service Commission in case No. 19959, where the respondent-appellee  is the applicant and the herein petitioner-appellant is  the  oppositor.

The record shows that the appellee was at first an irregular operator of a  transportation service between Manila and Antipolo by means  of  auto-trucks,  but later filed an application to the effect that his irregular service should be converted into regular service on a fixed time schedule. He thereafter amended his application and included therein the small town of Teresa, but to this the appellant herein, together with several other operators on that line, presented opposition and the commission denied the application with respect  to Teresa, but approved the appellee's application for the  Manila-Antipolo line.  The appellee, later, filed an additional motion in regard to his above-mentioned application, which may be considered a complaint against the appellant herein, and this gave rise to the rendition of another decision on  September  18,  1930, cancelling  many runs of appellant to and from Manila and Teresa, and granting to the appellee and  two others the operation up to Teresa. The Raymundo Transportation  Co. thereupon presented a petition  to this court for review of this  decision of the Public Service Commission.

It appears that the petitioner-appellant was  a holder of a certificate of public convenience under Case No. 13064 of the  Public  Service  Commission, granted January 20, 1928,  for the operation  of  an auto-truck service between Manila and Santa Cruz  (Laguna)  via Antipolo  and Teresa, and between Manila and Morong via Antipolo and Teresa, The road open to traffic goes only as far  as  Teresa and does not reach Morong.   The appellant  Raymundo Transportation Co. had an authority to make  24 hourly runs or trips  in  one day, all passing through the town of Teresa, but it could only run one or two busses a day, which was an open violation of the terms of its  certificate of public convenience and which  had  been the subject of  several complaints from different sources.  Upon  finding by the commission  of the non-observance  of the  terms  of the certificate of public convenience of the herein appellant, the commission ordered the Raymundo Transportation Co. to make the trips granted to it, but the appellant again failed to do so.

While it  is  the duty of the government as far as possible to protect public utility  operators against unfair and unjustified competition, it is nevertheless obvious that public  convenience must  have the first  consideration.   It is evident that on the  line in  question the traveling public is in need of more efficient service than  that given by the Appellant, and since it is evident that he cannot give the required service, other  operators  may  be entitled  to seek certificate of public convenience in the same territory.  The cases cited by the appellant are not in point.

The judgment appealed from  is therefore affirmed  in its entirety, with costs against appellant.  So ordered.

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