Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 45163, Oct 26, 1936 ]



63 Phil. 621

[ G. R. No. 45163, October 26, 1936 ]




The oppositor La Paz Ice  Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc.,  appeals to this court for the review of the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission, the  dispositive part of which reads as follows:
"Finding, therefore, after a careful consideration of all the evidence of record that the approval of this application will promote the public  interests in a proper and suitable manner, as required by law, the opposition filed by the La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc., is hereby overruled and the  applicant, Elpidio Javellana,  is hereby  authorized to install an additional producing unit with a capacity of 4 to 5 tons of ice daily in his ice plant in the municipality of Iloilo,  Province of Iloilo,  provided that the applicant should within 30 days from the date of notification hereof furnish this commission  with more detailed  information on the specifications of the additional producing unit herein authorized.
"This decision takes effect immediately." In support of its appeal the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the Public Service Commission in its decision in  question, to wit:
  1. The Public Service  Commission erred in granting the applicant Elpidio Javellana authority to install an ice producing unit with a capacity of from four to five tons of ice daily in his ice plant in the municipality of Iloilo.

  2. The Public  Service Commission  erred in overruling the opposition filed by the  La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc., to the application of the respondent Elpidio Javellana.

  3. The Public Service  Commission erred in not granting the motion for new trial  presented by the oppositor-appellant."
The applicant attempted to prove the following facts:
That  he is the sole owner and  operator of an ice plant established in the municipality of Iloilo with a population of about  five  thousand inhabitants;  that he is authorized by  the  Public Service Commission  to  produce 10 tons of ice daily  to be sold  not only  in the municipality of Iloilo but also in  the  neighboring municipalities; that the daily capacity of the two producing units which he acquired from their former owner C. N. Hodges is only from 5 to 6 tons due to wear and tear thereof and to the scarcity of water for refrigeration; that the water used by him for refrigerating his  machine is obtained from the Iloilo river by means of a pipe passing through the Iloilo pier; that  the  water reaching  the plant through the pipe in  question is  insufficient for his needs; that said pipe cannot be replaced by a bigger one nor can an additional pipe be installed due to the fact that the pier is made of concrete;  that the additional unit that the applicant plans to install, if his application is approved, will be driven by an electric motor which will not require refrigerating water; that the 5 or 6 tons of ice now produced daily in his plant are insufficient to meet the demand for ice from the municipalities served by him; that he often has to take incompletely formed blocks of ice from the refrigerating tank for the purpose of  meeting urgent demands; and that he is  the owner of 4 fishing motor launches, requiring about 120 tons of ice monthly which had to  be tied up for lack of ice.

The oppositor La Paz Ice Plant and Cold  Storage Co., Inc., attempted to prove that it produces approximately 30 tons of ice daily, which amount is sufficient to  satisfy the needs of the ice-consuming public  of Iloilo; that the applicant's producing units may be repaired in order  to reach at least  95 per cent of their original producing capacity, although the repair of the two units  would cost more than the installation of an entirely new producing unit.

There is no question that notwithstanding the installation by the applicant of the new ice producing unit with a producing capacity of 15 tons  daily,  he cannot produce  more than  10 tons of ice daily because his certificate of public convenience does not authorize him to do so.   The question for the public  and for the  oppositor company is that the applicant, with the installation, of a new ice-producing unit, should not be authorized to produce a greater quantity of ice than what is fixed by his certificate.  The  fact that the applicant, with the new unit, may abuse and produce  up to 15 tons of ice daily as any public service  may abuse is no reason to withhold from the applicant permission to improve  his machinery in  order  to  make his  production reach the limit fixed by the  Public Service Commission for the benefit of the community.   It should not be  assumed that the applicant abuses his  certificate and produces a greater quantity of ice than what  he is authorized to produce; but should he do so there is the commission to discipline and penalize him by suspending his certificate.

The Public Service Commission stated in its decision that after a careful consideration of all the evidence of record, it is  of the opinion that the approval of  the application presented by Elpidio Javellana will promote  the public interests in a proper and suitable manner, as required by law. Finding that  the evidence  of record reasonably supports and warrants the conclusions of the Public  Service  Commission, this  court, not being  permitted in such  case to substitute by  its own decision that of  said commission, is constrained by the law to sustain the latter.   (Manila Electric Company vs. Balagtas,  58 Phil.,  429; Ampil vs. Public Service Commission, 59 Phil., 556; Calabia vs. Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 659;  Aleosan Transportation Company vs.  Public  Service Commission, page 523, ante Mindanao Bus Company vs. Maria Cristina Transportation Co., G. R. No. 43628, promulgated September 9, 1935  [62 Phil., 956] and cases cited in this last decision.)
Wherefore, not finding any error in the appealed decision, it is affirmed in all its parts, with costs to the appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Laurel, JJ., concur.