Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1988 > February 1988 Decisions > G.R. No. L-34978 February 26, 1988 - ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-34978. February 26, 1988.]

ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, CAROLINA LAT PEREZ DE TAGLE, and PEDRO C. LAT, JR., Petitioners, v. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ROBERTO C. DIAZ, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS; RIGHT NOT VIOLATED WHERE PARTIES WERE GIVEN NOTICE AND AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. — We reject the petitioners’ assertion that their right to due process was violated. It is very clear from the records that the petitioners were given notice and opportunity to be heard negating the petitioners’ declaration that they were deprived of their day in court. Going back to the facts of this Case, We find, as the respondent Commission did, that the private respondent duly complied with the required notice of hearing. There was publication. The petitioners could not have been denied the right to be heard because as their counsel even admits, he agreed to the setting of the hearing of the case for August 19, 1970 at 9 o’clock in the morning. The Petitioners should have known about the date of the hearing. Yet, when the case was called, neither they nor their counsel showed up. There was not even any word from them. Their lame excuse that their lawyer made the mistake of noting down the hearing on a Sunday instead of a Monday is unacceptable. There were three of them who presented themselves as oppositors. It is unbelievable that no one of them found out about the mistake of their counsel had they shown any slight interest in the case. Their negligence cannot now be passed on to the respondent Commission which only did the right thing of proceeding with the case, which had become uncontested.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE; REQUISITES FOR GRANT THEREOF; FULLY SATISFIED IN CASE AT BAR. — We are convinced that the private respondent deserves to be awarded the Certificate of Public Convenience. He was able to fully satisfy the requisites before such a certificate may be granted, namely: (1) the applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or joint-stock company constituted and organized under the laws of the Philippines, 60 per centum at least of the stock or paid-up capital of which belong entirely to citizens of the Philippines; (2) the applicant must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operations; and (3) the applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner. There is no question that the private respondent is a Filipino Citizen. Regarding his financial capacity and public necessity for the ice plant, the finding of the Public Service Commission on these are relevant.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOBODY HAS EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO SECURE A FRANCHISE. — It is apt to stress the principle that nobody has the exclusive right to secure a franchise or a Certificate of Public Convenience. The paramount consideration should always be the public interest and public convenience.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; OPPOSITION BASED ON RUINOUS COMPETITION; MERE POSSIBILITY OF REDUCTION IN EARNINGS OF BUSINESS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND. — The allegation of the petitioners that the grant of Certificate of Public Convenience to the private respondent would result in ruinous competition amounting to damage of their business is unconvincing. The grant is for the operation of a mere 2-ton ice plant and only in Davao City whereas the petitioners are big operators producing no less than 63 tons of ice daily and who are authorized to operate ice plants not only in the City of Davao but also in the three Davao provinces. And We have held before, in order that the opposition based on ruinous competition may prosper, it must be shown that the opponent would be deprived of their profits on the capital invested in its business. The mere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not sufficient to prove ruinous competition. It must be shown that the business would not have sufficient gains to pay a fair rate of interest on its capital investments.


D E C I S I O N


GANCAYCO, J.:


This is a petition for the review of a Decision of the Public Service Commission, dated February 24, 1972, granting the application of the herein private respondent, Roberto C. Diaz, for a Certificate of Public Convenience.

The facts of the case are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On May 11, 1970, the herein private respondent Roberto C. Diaz filed an application with the respondent Public Service Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate and maintain an ice plant service in Davao City alleging among others that he is financially capable to operate and maintain the proposed service, and that public necessity and convenience will be promoted in a proper and suitable manner with the approval of his application. 1 Said application was published in two newspapers of general circulation namely: El Debate and The Philippine Herald, and copies thereof were sent to affected operators including the herein petitioners Angeles C. Vda. de Lat, Carolina Lat Perez de Tagle and Pedro C. Lat, Jr. Only the petitioners filed an Opposition to the Application and the same was submitted on July 3, 1970.

By agreement of the parties, the hearing of the Application and the Opposition was set by the respondent Commission for August 17, 1970 at 9 o’clock in the morning. However, when the case was called for hearing as late as 10 o’clock in the morning on the said date, neither the oppositors nor their counsel was present. Hence, the respondent Commission declared the case uncontested and received the evidence of the private Respondent.

In this petition, the petitioners contend that they filed an Urgent Motion for Postponement and of Hearing on August 17, 1970, with the respondent Commission on the around that their counsel made the mistake of noting down in his calendar the hearing on August 6, 1970, a Sunday and that it was already too late when he discovered the said mistake. 2 On August 18, 1970, the petitioners filed a motion for reopening of the case and allowance to present evidence but unfortunately, on the same date respondent Commission issued an Order granting the private respondent provisional authority to operate the ice plant for six (6) months. This was based on the findings of the Commission that there was indeed an urgent need for an ice plant in Davao City as its population has increased tremendously. Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration but this was denied in a Resolution signed by all the members of the respondent Commission, said motion having been heard by the Commission en banc. 3

The above-mentioned provisional authority granted to the private respondent was extended twice. The first extension was given on February 12, 1971 and the second, on December 10, 1971. Finally on February 24, 1972, the respondent Commission handed down a Decision approving the Application of the private respondent and granting him a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a 2-ton ice plant in Davao City.

In this petition for review, the petitioners are asking that the Decision rendered by the respondent Commission on February 24, 1972 be set aside and declared null and void, as it has been rendered without due process. Their claim is that they were deprived of their day in court when they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the private respondent and to present their evidence in support of their Opposition. 4 Furthermore, they submit that the decision awarding the Certificate of Public Convenience to the private respondent was based merely on the latter’s uncorroborated testimony and would amount to competition that would damage their business. 5

Two issues are raised in this petition. The first is whether or not the petitioners were deprived of their day in Court to make the proceeding in the respondent Public Service Commission null and void. And the other is whether or not the private respondent was validly awarded the questioned Certificate of Public Convenience to operate an ice plant in Davao City.

As regards the first issue, We reject the petitioners’ assertion that their right to due process was violated. It is very clear from the records that the petitioners were given notice and opportunity to be heard negating the petitioners’ declaration that they were deprived of their day in court.

Going back to the facts of this Case, We find, as the respondent Commission did, 6 that the private respondent duly complied with the required notice of hearing. There was publication. 7 The petitioners could not have been denied the right to be heard because as their counsel even admits, he agreed to the setting of the hearing of the case for August 19, 1970 at 9 o’clock in the morning. 8

The Petitioners should have known about the date of the hearing. Yet, when the case was called, neither they nor their counsel showed up. There was not even any word from them. Their lame excuse that their lawyer made the mistake of noting down the hearing on a Sunday instead of a Monday is unacceptable. There were three of them who presented themselves as oppositors. It is unbelievable that no one of them found out about the mistake of their counsel had they shown any slight interest in the case. Their negligence cannot now be passed on to the respondent Commission which only did the right thing of proceeding with the case, which had become uncontested.

Nor can it be said that the Decision of the respondent Commission is arbitrary. The application was not outrightly approved upon reception of the evidence of the private Respondent. On the contrary, the respondent Commission took time to consider and weigh such evidence as can be seen from the fact that the private respondent was granted only a provisional authority on August 18, 1970, which was twice extended, before the case was finally determined on February 24, 1972.

We are convinced that the private respondent deserves to be awarded the Certificate of Public Convenience. He was able to fully satisfy the requisites before such a certificate may be granted, namely: (1) the applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or joint-stock company constituted and organized under the laws of the Philippines, 60 per centum at least of the stock or paid-up capital of which belong entirely to citizens of the Philippines; (2) the applicant must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operations; and (3) the applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner. 9

There is no question that the private respondent is a Filipino Citizen. Regarding his financial capacity and public necessity for the ice plant, the finding of the Public Service Commission on these are relevant, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appears from the evidence adduced by the applicant, that he is a co-owner of a parcel of land situated at Barrio Magugpo, Tagum, Davao (Exhibit "F" & "F-1") with an area of 15,738 square meters and having a present market value of P25,000.00 (Exhibits "G" & "G-1") with the Bank of the Philippine Islands; and that, he is engaged in the fishing business with an investment of P10,000.00 to P15,000.00 and from which he earns a monthly income of P2,000.00 to P3,000.00. As regards the necessity for the service applied for, applicant testified that the only oppositors here are serving almost 1/3 of the population of Davao; that Davao City is a tourist belt and the population has increased from 225.7 in 1960 to 389.3 in 1970, as evidenced by Exhibit "1" ; that there are two (2) or (3) three barrios in said city; that being a fishing ground, there are plenty of fish wherein ice is very much needed in order to preserve them; that he received a request from the Barrio Captain of Bo. Buhangin, Davao City (Exhibit "J") clamoring for ice in behalf of its 9,431 inhabitants; and that there is an urgent need for an ice plant in Davao City, to serve the requirements for ice in the said city" 10

Before We end, it is apt to stress the principle that nobody has the exclusive right to secure a franchise or a Certificate of Public Convenience. The paramount consideration should always be the public interest and public convenience. 11

Furthermore, the allegation of the petitioners that the grant of Certificate of Public Convenience to the private respondent would result in ruinous competition amounting to damage of their business 12 is unconvincing. The grant is for the operation of a mere 2-ton ice plant and only in Davao City whereas the petitioners are big operators producing no less than 63 tons of ice daily and who are authorized to operate ice plants not only in the City of Davao but also in the three Davao provinces. And We have held before, in order that the opposition based on ruinous competition may prosper, it must be shown that the opponent would be deprived of their profits on the capital invested in its business. The mere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not sufficient to prove ruinous competition. It must be shown that the business would not have sufficient gains to pay a fair rate of interest on its capital investments. 13

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Public Service Commission appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz and Griño-Aquino, JJ., concur.

Teehankee (C.J.), did not take part in the deliberations.

Endnotes:



1. Page 13, Rollo; Annex A.

2. Page 7, Rollo.

3. Page 9, Rollo.

4. Page 11, Rollo.

5. Page 15, Rollo.

6. Page 38, Rollo; Decision.

7. Page 38, Rollo; Decision.

8. Page 6, Rollo; Petition.

9. P. 368, Martin, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Philippine Commercial Laws, Vol. 3, 1986 Ed.

10. Page 39, Rollo.

11. Rizal Light and Ice Co., Inc. v. Mun. of Morong, Rizal, 25 SCRA 286.

12. Page 14, Rollo; Opposition.

13. Halili v. Daplas, 14 SCRA 14.




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






February-1988 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-46585 February 8,1988

    ANGELA V. GINSON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28896 February 17, 1988 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ALGUE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75377 February 17, 1988 - CHUA KENG GIAP v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77716 February 17, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE DOCTOR CORAZON DIAZ-LEUS v. HERNANI MELVIDA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3135 February 17, 1988 - MIGUEL CUENCO v. MARCELO B. FERNAN

  • G.R. No. L-37736 February 23, 1988 - ANTONIO L. EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 39084 February 23, 1988 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • G.R. No. L-59621 February 23, 1988 - MAXIMILIANO ALVAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60578 February 23, 1988 - PATERNO D. ESCUDERO, ET AL. v. CEFERINO E. DULAY

  • G.R. No. L-65114 February 23, 1988 - RENE KNECHT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69844 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO M. POLICARPIO

  • G.R. No. 72870 February 23, 1988 - TEODORO R. PULIDO v. MANUEL M. LAZARO

  • G.R. No. 74517 February 23, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY DY

  • A.C. No. 3086 February 23, 1988 - ALEXANDER PADILLA v. BALTAZAR R. DIZON

  • G.R. No. L-59514 February 25, 1988 - PACIANO REMALANTE v. CORNELIA TIBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30360 February 26, 1988 - NICOLAS SALAMANCA, ET AL. v. FAUSTINO RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30852 February 26, 1988 - CITY OF ILIGAN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32055 February 26, 1988 - REYNALDO BERMUDEZ, SR., ET AL. v. A. MELENCIO-HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32600 February 26, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO BELMONTE

  • G.R. No. L-34978 February 26, 1988 - ANGELES C. VDA. DE LAT, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35647 February 26, 1988 - INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL FACTORS, INC. v. AURORA S. MARASIGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38892 February 26, 1988 - BENITO LEGARDA, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO SAVELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43766 February 26, 1988 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44301 February 26, 1988 - MERARDO A. VELASQUEZ v. ROMEO D. MAGAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49808 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54223 February 26, 1988 - BABY BUS INC. v. MINISTER OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55062 February 26, 1988 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75067 February 26, 1988 - PUMA SPORTSCHUHFABRIKEN RUDOLF DASSLER, K.G. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76597 February 26, 1988 - TOMAS LAO v. LETICIA TO-CHIP, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 76648 February 26, 1988 - HEIRS OF THE LATE MATILDE MONTINOLA-SANSON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 76954-55 February 26, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIANO RENEJANE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31426 February 29, 1988 - LUZ CARO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34344 February 29, 1988 - RICARDO AGUIRRE, ET AL. v. JOSE DUMLAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35512 February 29, 1988 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

  • G.R. No. L-36021 February 29, 1988 - PASTOR DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36527 February 29, 1988 - COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39013 February 29, 1988 - FRANCISCO BUNAG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41979 February 29, 1988 - MATILDE SANCHEZ LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-42624 February 29, 1988 - ANA C. BARCENAS v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44822 February 29, 1988 - ESPIRITA B. BUENDIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46953 February 29, 1988 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48112 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO B. MONTON

  • G.R. No. L-48546 February 29, 1988 - SUMMIT GUARANTY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. GREGORIA C. ARNALDO

  • G.R. No. L-48969 February 29, 1988 - BELEN L. VDA. DE GUIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO R. VELOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51983 February 29, 1988 - ADORACION VALERA BRINGAS v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55397 February 29, 1988 - TAI TONG CHUACHE & CO. v. INSURANCE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-59266 February 29, 1988 - SILVESTRE DIGNOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60007 February 29, 1988 - NOE C. BAJA v. ANTONIA CORPUZ MACANDOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-60443 February 29, 1988 - CONSTANTINO ALVAREZ, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68636 February 29, 1988 - NORTHERN CEMENT CORPORATION v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71177 February 29, 1988 - ERECTORS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73116 February 29, 1988 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO AVANZADO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 73867 February 29, 1988 - TELEFAST COMMUNICATIONS/PHILIPPINE WIRELESS, INC. v. IGNACIO CASTRO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76464 February 29, 1988 - TESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANA MALOTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76690 February 29, 1988 - CLAUDIA RIVERA SANCHEZ v. MARIANO C. TUPAS

  • G.R. No. 78299 February 29, 1988 - G & G TRADING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS