SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-45740 July 30, 1938

LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO., INC., respondent, vs. ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, petitioner.

William E. Greenbaum, Luis G. Hofilena and Duran and Lim for petitioner.
Felipe Ysmael and Jose F. Orozco for respondent.

CONCEPCION, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

This is a petition for review filed by the oppositor-appellant Elpidio Javellana for the purpose of having us set aside the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission on July 26, 1937 which was amended by order of September 18, of the same year. Said decision and order authorized the respondent La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc., to produce fifty tons of ice daily in Iloilo by the installation of a 200-horse power motor and an additional 10 by 10 compressor, and to reduce its price from P15 to P12 per ton.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Both petitioner and respondent are ice plant operators in Iloilo. The former had a permit to produce thirty tons of ice and the latter ten tons. Their permits date back to the year 1930. In May, 1936 respondent filed an application with the commission, which was amended by another dated October 9, of the same year, praying for a permit to produce fifty tons of ice daily by the addition of a 200-horse power motor and an additional 10 by 10 compressor. It also asked that it be allowed to reduce its selling price. Petitioner opposed the application upon the grounds, among others, that respondent was not entitled to a new certificate of public convenience because from the commencement of its operation it had been and still was illegally operating by producing a greater quantity of ice-than it had been authorized to do so; that the territory which respondent was authorized to do so; that the territory which respondent was authorized to serve does not require more than twenty tons daily which can be met by said respondent which ten tons daily and by the oppositor-appellant; that the reduction applied for in the rates of respondent would result in ruinous competition with the petitioner.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The population of Iloilo and the neighboring towns is more than 85,000 inhabitants. Within their territory there are five hospitals, twenty-five or thirty hotels and restaurants, thirty ice cream factories, and a public market. According to the observations of the commission, a number of ships from Manila and the ports of other provinces and of foreign countries call at the City of Iloilo almost daily. Several fishing vessels provide themselves with ice daily therein. The city itself is progressive and the majority of its inhabitants, including the workingmen, now use ice daily. These facts justify the increase in the production of ice as prayed for by the respondent. The fact that respondent has been violating, as alleged, its certificate by producing a greater quantity of ice than that it is authorized to produce, is not a meritorious objection. Its application precisely shows its intention to operate within the law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As to whether the giving of a permit to the respondent to produce fifty tons of ice would result in ruinous competition for the petitioner, who do not believe that this objection is supported by the actual facts, considering that there are not more than two ice plants in Iloilo, which are those of the petitioner and the respondent, and that the growing population of Iloilo and of the neighboring municipalities, the business houses therein, the ships and fishing vessels which arrived daily at said port, and the public in general require and use ice daily as an article of prime necessity so that a greater production thereof would not give rise to ruinous competition. If the needs of the public would not result in the consumption of eighty tons of ice which the parties in this case are authorized to produce, they can, of course, reduce their production because the permit granted by the commission does not mean an obligation to produce fifty tons on the part of the respondent and thirty on that of the petitioner.