On  6 February  1953.   the  herein respondent  filed  with the Public Service Commission an application to operate  four   (4) units for a TPU  express  through service  between Cavite  City to Olongapo,   Zambales.  via Manila,   following a time table attached  to the  application,   without   picking  up or dropping passengers  in the City  of Manila   (case No.  70707).     The herein petitioner, joined  by  the  Victory Liner,   Inc.  and  the  Try-V-Tran, filed  their respective oppositions alleging  that  the   proposed service  applied  for by the   respondent  was  unnecessary  because their   (the  oppositors')   actual service was  adequate to  meet  the demands  of the  travelling  public;   that   the  proposed  service would not  promote public   convenience   but might   result   in a ruinous   competition;   and  that   should   the   Commission find   there was need  for the   service  applied for they. the  oppositors,  were willing   to  put up  additional service  along the  line.     On 11 June   1953,   after  the   evidence of the applicant had been submitted it   prayed that   a provisional  permit  to operate the four (4)   units  be  issued  to  it.   it  having   been shown  that  no  transportation on that   line was being   run by any public   service. This petition was not acted upon.    At  the hearing of   the   case, however, Mariano Medina  and the Try-V-Tran did not  present  any evidence;   Instead they filed their respective applications for authority to operate  on the same cavite-Olongapo  line via Manila Only  the  Victory Liner,   Inc.   presented evidence. In support  of its opposition.

After hearing,   on 15  October 1953  the Public  Service Commission rendered  a  decision granting  the   applicant   the  certificate  of  public  convenience applied  for,   to run and  operate daily  for  the   transportation of  passengers and  freight four   (4) auto-trucks  of  any make,   with fixed route regular termini and schedule  of   trips  on  the   line Cavite City-Olongapo   (Zambales) via Highway 54,   and  vice-versa.

Mariano Medina has  petitioned for a review of the decision under Rule 43,   contending that   (1)   the  decision of the  Public Service Commission is not   reasonably  supported  by the   evidence of record;   and   (2)   that   the  Public  Service Commission erred  in not giving the  petitioner the   right  of  preference over  that of the  respondent in putting  up the new service  applied for.

On the   first   contention the  decision of  the Public Service Commission pertinent   to it   reads  as follows;

From the  evidence  adduced  by applicant,   it  appears that  there  are many  employees working  in the  Olongapo Naval   Base who  are residents of Cavite City who continued working, at   the  Naval Base when  it was  transferred from Cavite  to Olongapo;   that   in the   previous  years,   these employees from Cavite  could  avail  of   the  direct  bus  services  rendered  by  the Green Diamond,   Osteria Transit and the  Cavite Motor Bus  Line,,  but that  these operators have already stopped  operating from Cavite  to Olongapo; that   these  employees go home to  Cavite  City not only on Friday  afternoons,   but, also  on other days  of the   week, because  of  overtime'' work or when they are given leaves of  absence.;   that at   present  there   is  no  direct service from Cavite  City to Olongapo  except   that   of Mariano Medina  whose busses   come  from Silang.   as  a  result  of which said  busses  are   already filled with  passengers and  cargoes when they   pass Cavite  City,   and   passengers from' Cavite  City   have  to  take  the   busses  of  applicant from Cavite City to   its   terminal in Manila  at Florentino  Torres  Street;   that  from this  terminal,   passengers have  either to walk or  take  a taxi when they  have packages with them,   up to the  Try-V-Tran   station at  Oroquieta,   as   there are no   jitneys   operating   between the two  stations;   that   this   system of transfer causes  the passengers  unnecessary  delay and additional expenses in going  from one   station to  another,   and  this   difficulty of  transportation  is  aggravated  especially during rainy  or stormy weather;   and  that  during the time that the  Green Diamond,   the   Osteria Transit  and   the   Cavite Motor Bus Line  were  operating from Cavite  City  to  Olongapo,   a direct trip  lasts abound  four hours,  whereas  by riding  in the   regular trips   of  the  Saulog Transit from Cavite  City  to Manila,   and   of  the  Try-V-Tran or Victory Liner from Manila  to Olongapo,   it   takes the   passengers at  least  six hours.

On the   other  hand,   the   Victory   Liner  tried to  prove that   the- present  operators  are  rendering  an  adequate  and sufficient  service   "or  the   needs  of the   passengers  from Cavite  City   to  Olongapo   tint   the   previous operators  operating  on the  line applied  for were   forced  to abandon their   service because  of  the   lack  of   passengers obtaining  online   line;   that   the   bulk of   passengers  is  heavy only    on Fridays when the   employees from the Naval  Base go home   to  Cavite,   and  on Sundays when the   employees have  to  return  to  Olongapo  to report for duty  on Mondays that   because the   busses do not   carry any  passengers  on Fridays  on their way  to  Olongapo,  and  on Monday mornings from Olongapo  to  Cavite there were forced  to  pick local passengers from Manila   along  the way   to  Olongapo and vice-versa;   that   even if  the   few passengers from Cavite to Olongapo have to drop at Manila,   they have  ready and available means of transportation either  from the Victory Liner or from the. Try-V-Tian from Manila   to Olongapo "where  both operators maintain an hourly  service.

After  a  careful   consideration of the   evidence  presented  by the  parties,   the   Commission believes  that   there is  really  a need for  authorizing  the  direct   service applied for from Cavite City to Olongapo.     We  have  consistently held that   a  direct  service  is more  convenient  to  the  travelling  public  than one   which  Involves a transfer at some intermediate point, and   this  is  true  especially on long distance trips. In the   present case,   it has   been proved that the difference in  travelling  time  between the  direct service and the one with  transfer   is  two  hours because the passengers have to  avail   themselves of  the services of two operators, one  from Cavite City to Manila and another  from Manila Olongapo. Besides,   the oppositor Victory Liner is   serving only  a  portion of the  line applied  for and therefore cannot  give  the same  service sought for in the   present application.

The above  quoted  part  of  the   decision  supported by  the evidence  shows  that  there  is  need of a direct  line such as that   applied for by the  respondent.     When the   petitioner filed Ms petition for  a preferential  right  to operate over,  the  said line he   emphasized  in his  application that  public   convenience demanded  the   operation of  the  direct service.     The finding  of the Commission as  regards   the  difficulty  of transfers,   inconvenience,   loss  of  time  and  efforts of  the   passengers riding on the  Saulog Transit and. Medina Transit busses and  transferring to those of  either the Try-V-Tran, or   the   Victory Liner,   Inc. from Cavite City   to Manila  at  one point   and from the  latter city at  another point  to  Olongapo,   is supported  by the  evidence of record. Such   being the   case, the finding should not be disturbed, for it is a settled rule that this Court would not set aside a decision of the PublicService Commission as long as there is evidence that reasonably supports it.^[1]

On the point of preference, the same has already been settled when this Court held^[2] that:

The appellant insists that, as an old operator, it should enjoy preference in the matter of adding new auto-trucks required on the old and new lines. The appellant however, had not volunterred to apply for additional  units  and  had. thought of  claiming said  right only after  the  appellee,   aware  of the increasing   travelling  needs  of the   people,   filed  an application for the  issuance of the   certificate in question.    Appellant's attitude is  unfair  both to the  public and  to other, operators.

There  is no doubt that  the above ruling is applicable to the  instant   case,   because  it was only after the   respondent had filed its application for  a direct  service line that the peti­tioner had awakened  to tie   realization that   there was  need for such  direct service line  aid  filed his own application  stressing the necessity for  it  which he   in his  written opposition to the respondent's application had  previously denied.

The  decision appealed from is  affirmed,  with  costs  against
the  petitioner.

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

---

^[1] Section 35, Com. Act No. 146. Sec Ice & Cold Storage Industries of the Phil. vs. Valero, G.R. Nos. L-1871-1872, 18 November 1949; Interprovincial Autobus vs. Mabanag, G.R. No. L-3302 11 January 1951; Halili vs. Balane, G.R. No. L-3364, 11 April 1951; Negros Ice & Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-2846, 29 September 1951; Interprovincial Autobus vs. Clarete, G.R. No. L-4100-4102, 15 May 1952; Surigao Express Co. Inc. vs. Mortola, G.R. No. L-4816, 23 March 1954; Angat-Manila Trans. Co. vs. Tengco, G.R. No. L-5906, 26 May 1954; PANTRANCO vs. Tambot, G.R. No. L-6738, 25 August 1954; Bacolod Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc. vs. Negros Ice & Cold Storage Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-7088, 16 May 1956.

^[2] Interprovincial Autobus vs. Clarete, supra.