This  is a petition to review  a decision of  the Public Service Commission.

The estate of Florencio P. Buan, herein petitioner,  is an authorized bus operator along various lines in central and  northern Luzon, with authority to operate  8 auto trucks along tjie  Manila-Bagac line and 11 along  the Moron-Dinalupihan line.  Allegedly in response to various resolutions  of municipal councils and on petition  of civic and  labor groups  in the province  of Bataan  urging extension of  its services  to their respective municipalities, petitioner applied in four cases in the Commission for certificates of public convenience to operate additional trips between Manila and various municipalities and barrios in Bataan,  with a total of 83 units  distributed as follows:

                                                                                                                               

Manila-Balanga and vice versa ....................................	30	units
Manila-Mariveles and vice versa.................................	10	"
Manila-Lamao and vice versa.....................................	8	"
Manila-Moron and vice versa......................................	8	"
Manila-Orani and vice versa.......................................	7	"
Manila-Cabcaben and vice versa...............................	4	"
Manila-Orion and vice versa......................................	6	"
Manila-Limay and vice versa......................................	6	"
Hamla-Dinalupihan and vice versa.............................	4	"

The Pampanga Bus Company and La Mallorca opposed these applications, both alleging that they  are authorized to operate and are actually operating a fleet of auto-trucks on the lines applied for and rendering adequate and satisfactory service; that  the additional  services applied for are  superfluous,  will  not promote public interest  in  a proper and suitable  manner, and will result in cut-throat and  ruinous, competition.  The Commission, after hearing the parties and their evidence and having before it the records of the authorized services on the lines applied for, as well as the findings of two of its agents who had been ordered by it to make an on-the-spot survey of the passenger traffic along those lines, rendered a joint decision in the four cases, denying  the applications on the grounds that petitioner  had not  made  a  case  for  the grant of the certificates applied for, that the service of the  oppositors was adequate and  sufficient for the actual needs of the public and that the grant of the  applications would only result in unnecessary  or wasteful  competition.  Reconsideration  of  this decision having been denied, petitioner has  sought a  review of this  Court.

It would appear  from the  record that  the Pampanga Bus Company is authorized  and  actually operating 27 round trips on the Limay-Manila line, 8 on  the Limay-San Fernando,  Pampanga, line;  14 kon the Mariveles-Limay line, 4 on the  Balanga-Moron line, 3 on the Balanga-Dina- lupihan line, and 1 on the Guagua-Dinalupihan  line, while the La Mallorca has 15 round trips on the Lamao-Manila line,  6 on the Balanga-Manila line,  16 on the  Cabcaben Balanga line, and  20 on  the Balanga-Dinalupihan line. The main issue in this petition for review is whether or not the trips actually being operated by the two companies, together with those of petitioner, are  adequate  to  serve the public need.

To prove the inadequacy of the present service, 14 witnesses took the stand for petitioner  and testified to the insufficiency of transportation facilities and the  need for additional service on the lines applied for.  Documentary proof,  consisting  of resolutions  of  municipal councils of Balanga, Dinalupihan, Limay, and  Orani, and a petition of the Association of Citizens of Orion, was  also adduced to show the need for the solicited additional service,  and there was also mention of the inability of the Pampanga Bus Company to register its authorized number  of  units, as well as the alleged noncompliance on  the  part of the two respondents  companies with the terms of their certificates by suppressing trips  on  hours when they do not expect a sufficient number of passengers.  On their part the  two respondent companies  presented six witnesses, and documentary  proof  too, to  show that  they were rendering service in accordance with  the requirements of their certificates and that the needs of the traveling public were being adequately served.

Unable at first to arrive at a decision from the conflicting  evidence presented for both parties,  the  Commission ordered  a survey of  the passenger  traffic  on the  lines applied for, and to that end assigned and stationed in two strategic places in Bataan two of its  gaents.  The agents made  a check-up  of  the number  of  passengers coming to and from the whole province for a period of one week and thereafter submitted their findings.  Considering these findings together  with  the  evidence  submitted by  the parties,  the  Commission  found  that

"The reports of agents at  both checkpoints confirm the assertion of the oppositors that the existing: passenger traffic  in all the  lines do not warrant the authorization of additional service.  An examination  of the reports will show that on an average  from 12  to 15 passengers were carried by each bus checked and in many instances the number of passengers carried was between two  and ten.  A computation of the load of the buses on all the lines during  the period of checking shows that the average payload per bus on  the lines was  even less than 50  per cent.  On the Manila-Balariga line, the load was 33 per cent; Manila-Limay $0 per cent; Manila-Lamao 33  per  cent; Manila-Orion 38 per cent; Manila-Bagac  39 per cent, and on the local lines like San Fernando-Limay,  Dina- lupihan-Balanga; Guagua-Limay and Dinaliipihan-Moron, the average load was about 20 per cent of the carrying capacity of the truck. A similar  finding results from  the checking undertaken at Layac, Dinalupihan, where the payload of the trucks as checked  is practically the same as  that of  the trucks checked at  Balanga.  The checking also  indicates that  oppositors  operate  their  service  in accordance with the schedules prescribed in their certificates and that the service which they  render  together  with  that of other operators provide the  public  with buses  at frequent intervals  so that we find  it  difficult to  believe  the  assertion  of applicant's witnesses that passengers can not oe accommodated due to insufficient trips or that buses which arrive  ure so loaded that they are  not allowed to  ride."

The above-quoted  findings  are obviously supported  by more  than substantial evidence and therefore binding upon this Court, which is not required to  examine the proof de novo  and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance  of evidence really  justifies  the  decision  below. Moreover, such doubt as might arise from the conflict of evidence appears to be dissipated by the reports of the two checkers  sent out  to  observe  by  the  Commission.   As pointed out in the decision, an examination of those reports "will  show that  on  an  average  from  12  to 15 passengers were  carried  by each bus checked and in  many instances the number  of passengers carried was between two and ten."   Needless  to say,  the sending of the two checkers for purposes  of observation appears  to be justified, for as this Court has  already  said, "where the evidence was conflicting as to whether existing service of the holder of a certificate  of  convenience for land  transportation was inadequate, so that another certificate should be granted to petitioner, the Public Service Commission acted with prudence in spending two of its  inspectors to investigate and report on the situation.   (Gilles vs. Halili, 65 Phil., 738.)

It is, however, contended that the Commission erred in denying petitioner's  four applications for  direct service specially to those places where the two respondents have no authority to operate a direct service to and from Manila, and in sustaining respondent's opposition  notwithstanding the fact that they themselves have filed  applications  for direct service on the lines proposed to be served by petitioner in the presnt case, in  which applications they allege the necessity  for additional  service. It is argued in this connection that the two oppositors are serving only three of the nine lines applied for by petitioner, that is, Limay-Manila, Lamao-Manila, and  Balanga-Manila, and dispatch early morning trips  from Dinalupihan, Orion, Cabcaben, and Mariveles to Manila when neither of them has authority to operate direct service from these places to Manila and that this  unauthorized operation can not be considered as evidence in  support of  the finding of  adequate and sufficient facilities to warrant  denial of  applications  for direct service to those places for which none is authorized.

We find  no merit in petitioner's contention.  While it is true that the two oppositors have authority to pperate direct service only on three of the nine lines  applied for by petitioner, in reality these direct lines pass through the other  routes  applied  for like Orani  and Orion, and  the two oppositors  have sufficient and convenient  trips going to the other points like Mariveles, Moron, Cabcaben, and Dinalupihan,  whose  hours of departure  and arrival  are coordinated with those on the direct trips to Manila.  And for a clearer apprehension  of  the situation in this case, it should be noted that there is only one main highway in the province.  From  its  Mariveles end, the route of this highway  towards Manila traverses in  consecutive order the barrios of Cabcaben and Lamao, the towns of Limay, Orion,  Pilar, Balanga, Abucay, Samal,  Orani, Hermosa, and the barrio  of Layac, Dinalupihan.   The only places Bttan vs. Pampanga Bus Co. and La Mallotca not touched by this( highway, to where lines are also proposed by petitioner, are Dinalupihan, which lies along the Zambales highway two kilometers from the Layac junction, and  Moron, which lies southwest of Balanga and is connected to the highway by  a road which  passes  through Bagac and intersects it at Piiar.  Evidently,  respondents' 15 trips from Lamao, 27 trips  from Limay,  and the 6 trips from Balanga direct to Manila, as well as petitioner's own 8 trips from Bagac to Manila, all pass  along  this main highway so that in truth Lamao is served with 15 trips; Limay and Orion 42  trips; Pilar, Balanga, Abucay, Samal, Orani, Hermosa,  and Layac, 56 trips  daily to and from Manila, not to  mention the trips furnished by local operators within the province.   With the Commission's finding that the average payload per bus  on the Bataan line is less than  50  per cent and respondents' evidence, not  contradicted by petitioner, that  they  are not getting a reasonably fair margin  of profit on their lines, the granting of authority to operate the proposed additional services  would undoubtedly  crowd  the  routes presently served both by  the  respondents and  the  petitioner and decrease the already low average payload per bus, thereby provoking cut-throat competition, which ultimately results in deterioration of service due to heavy losses  or diminution in income.

The discriminatory attitude imputed to the Commission by reason of its having, to  petitioner's prejudice, allegedly deviated from its consistent policy, of approving applications for direct service since such kind of  service is more convenient to the traveling  public than the broken trips, is more fancied than real, considering the finding that the present  authorized trips are more than adequate to take care of the passenger traffic along the routes in  question. Highly desirable as direct trips undoubtedly are, there would be no sense in unnecessarily increasing their number on lines already amply  served by equally direct service supplemented by the local services.

The fact that respondents have dispatched trips without previous authority may call for some kind  of disciplinary action.  But we don't think it would be a good  ground for authorizing-additional trips where the Commission has found that  there is already more than  adequate  service along the main highway and to and  from  communities with easy access thereto.

It is  true that subsequent to  the filing  of petitioner's applications respondents themselves have filed similar applications for direct service on the same lines and in those applications  they allege the need  for  additional  service. But as to that we can believe  respondents' explanation at the hearing that the filing of  their own applications  was merely a tactical move calculated to secure  for themselves, as prewar operators with a heavy investment on the Bataan line, preference in the grant  of authority for additional service, should the Commission decide  after hearing  that there is need for such additional service.

The law, in  investing the  Public Service Commission with  the power of supervision  and control over public transportation,  has  also  clothed  it  with broad discretion in the exercise  of that power. With that discretion  this Court is not supposed to interfere except in case of clear abuse.  Such has not been  shown to  be  the  case here. What  appears  is that the  Commission, faced with the conflict of evidence  on the adequacy or  inadequacy of the present service, has sought to discover  the truth through an on-the-ground inspection and observation by its  own agents and  has, on the basis of information thus obtained, arrived at the conclusion that the additional service applied for is uncalled  for because there is already amplitude, if not superabundance, in the number of authorized trips. That conclusion is amply supported by the record and is far from being the product of  partiality  or unfair discrimination.  And it not clearly appearing that discretion has been abused or  that the Commission has illegally  used its powers, we have to respect  its judgment and not  to try to  replace  it with  our own.

Wherefore, the decision below  is  affirmed, with costs against the  petition.

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