Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > March 1960 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-13270-71 March 24, 1960 - JESUS T. PINEDA v. MOISES G. CARANDANG

107 Phil 369:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. L-13270-71. March 24, 1960.]

JESUS T. PINEDA, Petitioner, v. MOISES G. CARANDANG, Respondent.

Felipe S. Abeleda, Romeo L. Kahayon and Delfin Villaroman for Petitioner.

Napoleon Garcia for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; FINDINGS OF FACTS; SUPREME COURT WILL NOT INTERFERE. — In reviewing a decision of the Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court is not required to examine the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies that decision. Its only function is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might reasonably be based. The Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on questions of fact and will not interfere in the latter’s decision unless it clearly appears that there is no evidence to support it.

2. ID.; GRANTING OF CERTIFICATES OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE; RULE WHERE THERE ARE VARIOUS APPLICANTS; WHEN PRIORITY OF FILING APPLICATIONS BECOMES IMPORTANT. — The rule, where there are various applicants for a public utility over the same territory, is that priority of application, while an element to be considered, does not necessarily control the granting of a certificate of public convenience. The question to be considered is such cases is, which applicant can render the best service, considering the conditions and qualifications of the applicants to furnish the same. But where other conditions are equal, priority in the filing of the applications for a certificate of public convenience becomes an important factor in the granting or refusal of a certificate.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


These are separate petitions filed by petitioner Jesus T. Pineda for the review of a decision rendered by the Public Service Commission in Cases Nos. 106152 and 106673.

The records disclose that on April 10, 1957, the now respondent Moises G. Carandang filed with the said Commission an application for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate an ice plant in the municipality of Mamburao, province of Occidental Mindoro with a productive capacity of 5 tons of ice daily. The territory where he proposes to sell the ice he manufactures includes the said municipality of Mamburao as well as those of Abra de Ilog, Paluan, Sta. Cruz and Sablayan of the same province. (Case No. 106152). On May 10, 1957, herein petitioner Jesus T. Pineda filed his own application seeking authority to install and operate a similar plant also in the municipality of Mamburao capable of producing 8 tons of ice daily to sell the ice in the same municipalities proposed to be served by Carandang except Sablayan. (Case No. 106673.) Each applicant opposed the application of the other, claiming that he has a better right to a certificate and that he is better qualified to put up the proposed service. Maximo Anabo, an operator of an ice plant of one-ton capacity located in Abra de Ilog, one of the municipalities where both applicants propose to sell their ice, also opposed the applications. He withdrew his opposition, however, during the joint hearing of the applications when both applicants agreed to exclude the town of Abra de Ilog from among those they propose to serve.

From the evidence presented at the joint hearing, the Commission found that there is sufficient need for ice service in the territory covered by the two applications to warrant the authorization of another ice plant in the municipality of Mamburao, the one-ton of ice produced by the Abra de Ilog plant being inadequate to meet such need. The need or demand for ice, however, according an ice plant with a productive capacity of more than 5 tons. The Commission, likewise, found both applicants identically qualified and financially capable of operating the ice plant which each one proposes. But considering that Moises G. Carandang was the first applicant, the Commission in its decision dated September 30, 1957 denied Jesus T. Pineda’s application and approved that of the former, issuing to said Moises G. Carandang a certificate of public convenience to operate a 5-ton ice plant in Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro with authority to sell the ice it manufactures in that locality as well as in the municipalities of Paluan, Sta. Cruz and Sablayan of the same province.

In seeking a review of the decision below, counsel for petitioner contends that the Commission erred in giving undue importance to priority of application and in finding that a 5-ton ice plant would satisfy the need for ice service in Mamburao and the neighboring towns covered by the applications. It is claimed that, as between and two applicants, petitioner Jesus T. Pineda is in a position to render better service and that an 8-ton ice plant — and not one of only 5-ton capacity — will best serve the public interest and welfare in the territory proposed to be served. The Commission, however, as already stated, found that both applicants, herein petitioner and respondent, are identically qualified and financially able to operate and maintain the public service utility applied for. From an examination of the records, we find this finding to be amply supported by the evidence. We may add that the herein respondent, whose application was granted, is a civil engineer, with experience in the installation of an ice plant, so that from the point of view at least of technical know-how, he is in a better standing than herein petitioner Jesus T. Pineda. As to the authorization of only a 5-ton ice plant in Mamburao, we also find this to be fully justified and supported by the evidence, and consequently, like the Commission’s finding regarding the qualification and financial ability of both applicants, the same cannot now be disturbed. In reviewing a decision of the Public Service Commission, this Court is not required to examine the proo de novo and determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies that decision. Our only function is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might reasonably be based. This Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on questions of fact and will not interfere in the latter’s decision unless it clearly appears that there is no evidence to support it. (See Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. II, 1957 ed., p. 678.)

In the circumstances, we hold that the Public Service Commission committed no error in considering priority of application when it awarded to herein respondent the certificate of public convenience to operate a 5-ton ice plant. The rule, of course, where there are various applicants for a public utility over the same territory, is that priority of application, while an element to be considered, does not necessarily control the granting of a certificate of public convenience. The question to be considered in such cases is, which applicant can render the best service, considering the conditions and qualifications of the applicants to furnish the same. (De los Santos v. Pasay Transportation Co., 54 Phil., 357.) But where other conditions are equal — as in this proceedings — priority in the filing of the applications for a certificate of public convenience becomes an important factor in the granting or refusal of a certificate. (Batangas Transportation Co., v. Elise Silva v. Orlanes and Bannag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 745, cited in the recent cases of Benitez v. Santos; Lopez v. Santos, supra, p. 167. There being no reason to disturb the decision brought here for review, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Barrera, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 228 March 9, 1960 - PANFILO ROYO v. CELSO T. OLIVA

    107 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-14436 March 21, 1960 - HORACIO GUANZON v. FRANCISCO ARAGON, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 315

  • Adm. Case No. 341 March 23, 1960 - DELIA MURILLO v. NICOLAS SUPERABLE JR.

    107 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-12776 March 23, 1960 - MARTIN AGLIPAY, ET AL. v. ISABELO DE LOS REYES, JR., ETC.

    107 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-13403 March 23, 1960 - RAMON E. SAURA v. ESTELA P. SINDICO

    107 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-14304 March 23, 1960 - ANTONIANTONIA A. CABARROGUIS, ET AL. v. TELESFORO B. VICENTE

    107 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-8587 March 24, 1960 - BENITO E. LIM, ETC. v. HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., ETC., AND KAGAWA

    107 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. L-11747 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELISA TE, ET AL.

    107 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-11954 March 24, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINAR ACOSTA and CONSOLACION BRAVO

    107 Phil 360

  • G.R. Nos. L-13270-71 March 24, 1960 - JESUS T. PINEDA v. MOISES G. CARANDANG

    107 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-13476 March 24, 1960 - REMEDIOS L. VILLANUEVA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-14058 March 24, 1960 - William Gue v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    107 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-14303 March 24, 1960 - REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    107 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-11059 March 25, 1960 - ADRIAN FONG v. EMILIO M. JAVIER

    107 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. L-12603 March 25, 1960 - MUNICIPALITY OF HINABAÑGAN AND RUFINA NABUAL v. MUN. OF WRIGHT AND JULIAN ABEGONIA

    107 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-12870 March 25, 1960 - MARTIR ET AL. v. AMADO P. JALANDONI and PAZ RAMOS

    107 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13663 March 25, 1960 - ESPERIDION ADORABLE, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

    107 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. L-14439 March 25, 1960 - NARIC WORKER’S UNION, ET AL. v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. L-10313 March 28, 1960 - ISIDORA S. VDA. DE JESUS, ET AL. v. LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. L-12253 March 28, 1960 - OLIMPIO GUTIERREZ v. MIGUEL SANTOS, ET AL.

    107 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-13387 March 28, 1960 - SY CHIUCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    107 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-13683 March 28, 1960 - PAZ SAMANILLA v. CENEN A. CAJUCOM, ET AL.

    107 Phil 432

  • G.R. Nos. L-13688-91 March 28, 1960 - CATALINO GUITARTE v. LUCIA SABACO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-11310 March 29, 1960 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. RECORDING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-13465 March 29, 1960 - SELPH v. GLICERIA M. VDA. DE AGUILAR

    107 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-13832 March 29, 1960 - GERONIMO DE LOS REYES v. FROILAN BAYONA, ETC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-14710 March 29, 1960 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. ENCARNACION AGUSTINES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-7969 March 30, 1960 - JAI-ALAI CORP. OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS CHING KIAT BIEK, ET AL.

    107 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. L-9740 March 30, 1960 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO MUTUAL BLDG. LOAN ASS. ET AL. v. BUILDING EMPLOYEES INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-9940 March 30, 1960 - AVELINO REVILLA and ELENA FAJARDO v. GODOFREDO GALINDEZ

    107 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-10393 March 30, 1960 - BAY VIEW HOTEL EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. BAY VIEW HOTEL, INC., ET AL.

    107 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-10471 March 30, 1960 - INOCENCIA INGARAN, ET AL. v. FEDERICO RAMELO, ET AL.

    107 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-1053 March 30, 1960 - SILVERIO BLAQUERA, ETC., v. ESTEFANIA VDA. DE ALDABA and COURT OF APPEALS

    107 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-10705 March 30, 1960 - LUIS ATIENZA BIJIS v. FRANCISCO LEGASPI, ET AL.,

    107 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-10915 March 30, 1960 - SOLEDAD BACALZO, ET AL. v. MARTINA PACADA

    107 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-12541 March 30, 1960 - ROSARIO U. YULO v. YANG CHIAO SENG

    107 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. L-12795 March 30, 1960 - ACSAY MANDIH v. GREGORIO TABLANTIN

    107 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-12956 March 30, 1960 - ENRIQUE S. CASTRO v. ESPERANZA B. MONTES, ET AL.

    107 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. L-13026 March 30, 1960 - NG HIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    107 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. L-13072 March 30, 1960 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    107 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. L-13246 March 30, 1960 - FEDERICO CALERO v. EMILIA CARION Y SANTA MARINA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. L-13505 March 30, 1960 - BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC. v. FIDEL HENARES

    107 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-13791 March 30, 1960 - ALFRED EDWARD FAWCETT v. EULOGIO BALAO

    107 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. L-13852 March 30, 1960 - PEDRO AVENTURA and ANACLETA GALAN v. HON. PANTALEON A. PELAYO, ETC. AT AL.

    107 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-14541 March 30, 1960 - CONSUELO VELAYO v. COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO VELAYO

    107 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. L-14718 March 30, 1960 - VICENTE JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. CARMELO S. CAMARA, ET AL.

    107 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. L-14794 March 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BATUNDO MINURAY and BALICUAT GUBAT

    107 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-16132 March 30, 1960 - RICARDO CANCERAN, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    107 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. L-16731 March 30, 1960 - FELIPE ECO v. JUAN DE G. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    107 Phil 612