Petition to  review the decision  of the  Public Service Commission denying petitioner's application in  PSC Case No.  88055 for  an increase of trips  and equipment on the Biñan-Manila  and Manila-Batangas Lines.

Petitioner, a TPU  auto-truck operator on the lines above referred to, filed  with the Public Service Commission an application, dated June 2,  1956, for  an  increase of equipment and additional trips  on said  lines.  Her application was duly opposed by the Biñan Transportation Co., the Batangas  Transportation Co. and the Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co., on the  ground, inter alia, that service on the lines subject of the  application was more than sufficient to take care  of  the volume  of  traffic; that  oppositors  are ready and willing to  meet and provide for any emergency service that might  arise from time to time; and that the authorization  of the  additional service applied for by  petitioner would only  result in  useless duplication of service and promote ruinous competition between petitioner and TPU operators already authorized  on  said lines.

Having presented her  evidence,  petitioner  prayed for the issuance of a provisional permit authorizing  her  to operate the line applied for with the use of the proposed additional equipment, consisting of  four (4) auto-trucks. On the ground that there  is  "no  immediate and urgent public necessity  for the operation of the proposed additional  services,"  the Commission denied  the  same in  an order, dated  July 10, 1956.  (Record, p. 48).

After trial,  the Commission, not  being  satisfied from the evidence presented of the necessity for additional service on  the lines in question,  rendered  a decision, dated October 18, 1956, denying the application.  A motion for reconsideration,  dated  November  2,  1956,  having  been denied by  the Commission in an order dated December 14, 1954, (Record,  p. 108) the applicant interposed the present petition to review the decision of the Commission.

Four errors are assigned by appellant, all of which boil down to one single factual  issue, i.e., whether  or not there is necessity for the  additional  service applied  for by petitioner-appellant.

It is argued for  petitioner  that the  Commission gave undue  credit to the reports  of its agents assigned  to check on the volume of passenger traffic on the lines involved in her application.   In  considering the evidence, the Commission ruled as follows:

"Although evidence has been presented by the applicant on rebuttal tending to  show  that  the  entries  regarding the number of  trips recorded by agents  of  the  Commission in their checkbooks do not reflect the  correct number  of  passengers,  we are not inclined to Rive credence to the testimony of the conductors of  the  applicant, considering  that they are her own employees  and the  agents  involved have  testified on surrebuttal that the conductors of the applicant, including those of other operators like the Laguna Transportation, always make it  a point of check the entries made  by them to verify whether the agents record the correct number of passengers  in  their checkers books.  Besides,  if it  is  really true that  some  agents of the Commission do not  indicate  the  correct number of  passengers  in their  checkers  reports, they should  have brought the  matter immediately  to the attention of  the Commission, but the applicant or her employees have not taken  any steps either during the  course of the checking itself or  immediately thereafter in order to  bring to our attention  this alleged discrepancy in the number of  passengers  recorded by  the  agents  in their  checker's reports.  Unless clear and positive proof is presented that the agents of the Commission do not enter in their checker's reports the correct number of  passengers, we  can not  simply  disregard  the  entries made by  these  agents in their checker's  reports."  (Petitioner's Brief,  pp,  44-45.)

In  effect, appellant would want us  to  substitute the agents' reports with the  testimony of her passenger witnesses, which we can not do inasmuch as there is a complete absence  of  any positive evidence  that  such agents are biased or otherwise prejudiced.

"We  have held that the testimony  of  one or two passenger witnesses, such as those produced for the appellants, is relatively unreliable as  against the Commission's checkers,  first, because such witnesses are not entirely free from  bias, and second, because they do not make their observations of the  volume  of traffic during a certain fixed period so as to get the  average, but at some  hours of the  day when they actually board a bus and  find  it to be either crowded or  empty, whether or not  the day  is  a week day or a holiday, or the   hour  is  one when the  traffic is heavy or light." (Guico vs.  Bachrach  Motor  Co., et al.,  L-9570, July 29, 1957.)

Even  if it were  true,  as petitioner claims, that  certain prospective passengers   could  be  accommodated  in  her vehicles at certain hours  of the day, that circumstance does not  militate against  the Commission's  holding that  the additional  service  applied  for is not  necessary.

"The fact that a prospective passenger on a transportation line, on a  certain day and hour, fails to secure transportation, either because at  the moment there was no bus passing, or if there were it was already  full,  cannot  be a valid  test of  whether additional service on  the  line  is needed.  A person  desiring  transportation cannot expect, and has no right to expect,  available transportation every minute of the day for  the  reason that transportation companies are not  required. and  are in no position to furnish  said transportation.   That  is  the reason  why said  companies,  including railroad and shipping companies, have time schedules.  A traveller has to  adjust himself to said schedules.   It may be that occasionally a bus on which a traveller desires to secure transportation is already filled, thereby requiring  him to wait for the  next bus:  but these may "be ordinary and  inevitable incidents in the  transportation system over which  common  carriers have  no control.  Time  schedules and frequency of trips are  based  and  adjusted  by said companies and approved by the Commission on the  basis of  ordinary and usual traffic and not on occasional  and unexpected congestion of traffic when, for instance, whole  families go visiting relatives in  another town, or attend a town fiesta, or parties to a case bring witnesses to  court for trial, etc."  (Laguna Tayabas  Bus Co.  vs. Regodon, 100 Phil., 570; 53 Off. Gaz., [4], 1046.)

Petitioner is  impugning the findings of fact of the Commission, without alleging  or  showing that there is  an absence of evidence to support them.  It is a  well  settled rule that the Commission's findings as to facts  are binding and conclusive upon us  as long as they are reasonably supported by  substantial evidence, which is the case here (Estate of Buan vs. Pampanga Bus Co.,  99  Phil., 373;  Medina vs. Saulog  Transit, Lr-7244, June 28, 1956; Red  Line Trans. Co.  vs. Taruc,  L-6179, November  29,  1954;  Pangasinanf Trans. Co. vs. Tambo, 95 Phil., 661; Angat-Manila  Trans. Co. vs. Vda. de Tengco, 95 Phil., 58; Interprovincial Autobus vs. Mabanag; 88  Phil., 66; Manila Yellow  Taxicab vs. Danon, 58 Phil., 75). As a matter of fact, we are not even required to  examine the conflicting evidence to determine whether or not the preponderance of evidence  really justifies the  Commissions's findings.   The  well settled  rule  is that  we can not substitute  our discretion for that of the Commission  on factual questions unless it clearly  appear that there is no evidence to support the  contested  finding (Guico vs. Bachrach Motor  Co., supra.)

"These findings of fact are  conclusive upon this Court,  which cannot weigh  the conflicting evidence  and substitute its own conclusions in lieu  of those  made  by  the  Commission, and  can  not modify or set  aside the latter except when it clearly appears that there was  no  competent evidence before  it to support reasonably its decision.  In  the case  at bar, petitioner does not claim that such evidence  is  lacking.  He merely questions  the  weight or sufficiency thereof."   (Espiritu vs. Los Baños, L-7121, July 30,  1955.)

"In the  final analysis,  the determination of the question as  to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decision of the commission turns on  the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it. The jurisdiction of this court to set aside a decision of  the commission is limited to cases where it clearly appears that there was no evidence to support reasonably  such decision, or that the same is  contrary to law,  or that it was  without the jurisdiction  of the commission.  We  are unable  to conclude that any  of such grounds exists in the  present case."  (Cebu Autobus Company  vs. Bisaya Land Transportation Co., 66 Phil., 37 Off.  Gaz., No. 4, p. 86, 63, 67-68.)

The decision under review  is affirmed.  Costs  against petitioner.  So  ordered.

Paras,  C.  J., Bengzon,  Padilla Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, and Endencia, JJ., concur.