The Laguna Tayabas Bus Company is  appealing the decision of the  Public  Service Commission in  Case No. 79675  of that commission,  granting  the application  of Felix T. Regodon and overruling its opposition to the same. For purposes of reference, we are reproducing said decision of the Commission, excluding that portion referring merely to the conditions and rates imposed on the applicant, over which there is  no controversy.

"This  is an  application for the operation of  a TPU  service for the transportation of passengers and freight on the line Atimonan- Lucena in the Province of Quezon, with the use of one (1)  auto-truck.

"The  Laguna  Tayabas  Bus Company opposes  this  application for the  reasons  alleged  in its written  opposition  attached to the records  of  this  case; and  at  the  hearing  presented  evidence to show that there  is no need for the  proposed service as it is presently operating  on the  said line, and that the service it  is rendering is sufficient to meet the needs of the traveling public.  To support  this contention,  oppositor presented inspection  reports of its  operation  made  by  its own inspectors  as well as  the census taken by its census takers of other TPU vehicles operating in the region applied  for.  Aside from  the fact that said inspection reports and  census  are self-serving evidence, the  same  do not reflect the true passenger loads of the  auto-trucks of the  oppositor and other TPU cars between Atimonan and Lucena as most of the data of passenger loads were taken at places other than Atimonan and Lucena, the terminals of the  line applied for.  Moreover, even checking made  at  Pagbilao, Malinao and Malicboy, all intermediate points, of the said line Atimonan-Lucena, shows fairly good passenger loads which  contradicts oppositor's  contention that there are very few passengers on the line.

"On the other  hand, applicant  presented evidence  to show that there is a great  movement of passengers on the line applied for, consisting  principally  of  students who  attend the  different  high schools and  private colleges in  Lucena, and merchants, employees and farmers who bring their agricultural products to Lucena; that oppositor does  not operate  a  local service  between  Atimonan and Lucena, a  fact admitted by.it;  that trucks  passing through  these points, in their trips to Manila as well as. those  operating to Gumaca or points after Gumaca are always filled to capacity and cannot accommodate the large number of passengers that need transportation and that applicant  has already acquired  one (1)  auto-truck for operation in the line applied for by him.

"After a consideration of the evidence of record,  as  well as the records of  the Commission regarding  the  number  of  auto-trucks authorized to operate on the line in question,  and the number of trips that they make,  the  Commission  is of the  opinion that public interests  and convenience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner by the approval of this application.

"Wherefore, the opposition filed in this case is hereby overruled, and it appearing that applicant is a Filipino citizen and financially capable to operate and maintain  the proposed service, it is ordered that under  the provisions of section 16 of Commonwealth Act 146, as  amended, the certificate of public convenience applied for be issued to  the applicant, subject to the following conditions:  * * *."

The  only  question  involved  is  the volume  of  traffic between  the two  points  Lucena  and Atimonan, Quezon Province,  whether or not said Traffic considered with the present  transportation  service  being rendered,  is   such that additional  service is justified.  The Commission evidently attaches little if any importance to the  inspection reports and census made by appellant's own inspectors and census takers,  on the ground that  they are self-serving. That may be true in a way; at the same time, the evidence presented on behalf of  the applicant,  consisting  mainly of the testimony of witnesses including the applicant himself, cannot be considered as wholly impartial and  reliable, based as they are on observations made casually and without a definite period of  time  so  as to give an idea of the volume of traffic for the whole day.  In this respect, the reports  and census  made by the  oppositor-appellant should have at least  equal weight.

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  traveler 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 their witnesses to  court for trial, etc.

In the present case, even disregarding the reports and census presented  by the  oppositor-appellant as  to  the volume of traffic on the line Lucena-Atimonan, still we find the testimony of and report made by Cornelio Egasani, an agent of the Public Service Commission itself, which evidence was apparently overlooked by said Commission.  According to said report based on his observations, at a  point  between Lucena and Atimonan, and for  three successive days,  of  about thirty  trips a  day, although the capacity of the buses of the oppositor which made up the bulk of said  trips, is about forty-five passengers, although the oppositor claims  that it is forty-seven passengers, the number of passengers which Egasani found during his three days  observation never reaches the full capacity of said buses, the average being even below thirty. Sometimes, there were  only ten, thirteen, twenty-one, or less than thirty in  each bus; and the number of passengers on the pick-ups operated  by M.  Villareal was even less.  The only trouble we find in this report of Egasani is that it is based on his  observations and checking made between the hours  of  8:00 in  the morning  and 5:00 in the afternoon.  He  admitted in his testimony that there was more traffic during the rush hours, which according to him were between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. and between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., but that he could not ascertain or determine such volume for the reason that he started working only at  8:00 o'clock  in the morning and stopped working at 5:00 p.m., although  at one time, he began at 7:45 in the morning and left his post at 4:45  in the afternoon. He should have been instructed to vary his time of work and observation so as to include the rush hours.

The Commission  also says that the oppositor-appellant maintains no local service between Lucena and Atimonan This finding not only finds no  support in the record but is contrary to said record.  Manuel Gonzales, acting Traffic Manager of  the  oppositor-appellant,  in his testimony positively assured tha Commission that his company maintains a local  service between Lucena and Atimonan, and counsel for oppositor-appellant  in  his brief, particularly Appendix B  reproduces  the time  schedule  at this local service, starting from Atimonan at 5:25 a.m. and arriving at Lucena at 7:01 a.m., and leaving Lucena at  5:46 p.m. and arriving at Atimonan at 7:16 p.m.

Giving the applicant the benefit of doubt and assuming that during the rush hours on the line  in  question, the volume  of traffic justifies additional service, we  approve the Commission's decision granting Regondon's application for additional service, but with the modification that the Commission adjust his time schedule so as to  cover as nearly as possible  only the rush hours between  6:00 and 8:00  a.m. and 5:00 and  6:00 p.m., of  course,  with one single unit.   The reason for this modification is that any invasion of  the  lean hours  in transportation by allowing additional service thereto  would only result in unfair and cut-throat competition, with all the attendant evils and disadvantages,  such  as,  financial  loss  to  all  operators, changing without  authority time schedules  so as to get more passengers, or  racing of  buses on the highway in order to pick up passengers.

In  view of the  foregoing, and with  the modification above stated, the  decision  appealed from  is hereby affirmed. The case  is ordered remanded  to  the Commission so that it may make the adjustment of the time schedule as above  suggested.  For  this  purpose,  it might be advisable to call the parties to see if they could agree on this point; but  in case of  disagreement, the Commission may  on its own initiative  fix the said time schedule as above indicated. No  costs.

Paras, C.  J., Bengzon,  Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endenda, and Felix, JJ., concur.