Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > December 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 47299 December 21, 1940 - ANGEL T. LIMJOCO v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY

071 Phil 189:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 47299. December 21, 1940.]

ANGEL T. LIMJOCO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, ET AL., Respondents-Appellees.

Jose J. Roy and Eulalio Chaves for Petitioner-Appellant.

B. Francisco for Respondents-Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; DECISION; ICE PLANT OR REFRIGERATION ESTABLISHMENT. — Although as a general rule this court will not disturb the decision of the Public Service Commission if reasonably supported by evidence according to several decisions rendered, this is a case where we think the petition for review should be granted and the decision of the Public Service Commission reversed. It is admitted that San Juan del Monte has no ice plant or refrigeration establishment; neither has Mandaluyong. San Juan del Monte has a population of around 31,000 inhabitants, whereas Mandaluyong has more than 18,000. The oppositors, Mariquina Ice Plant and the Pasig Ice Plant of J. F., do not now sell or distribute ice in San Juan del Monte and Mandaluyong, though authorized to do so in their certificates of public convenience and necessity, and the ice service in these two localities is furnished solely by the oppositor San Miguel Brewery whose plant is located in Manila, several kilometers away, and which merely maintains in the said localities a delivery truck service and ice boxes handled by independent dealers. We are of the opinion that the public demand for ice can be better met by the establishment of an ice Plant in the same municipality where it is to be distributed.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Public Service Commission denying appellant’s application for a certificate of public necessity and convenience for the establishment, maintenance and operation of an ice plant of 5-ton capacity daily in the municipality of San Juan del Monte, Rizal Province, with authority to sell and distribute ice in said municipality and that of Mandaluyong, also of Rizal Province, and to establish, maintain and operate in connection therewith a refrigeration house or cold storage provided with lockers.

This application is objected to by the San Miguel Brewery, the Mariquina Ice Plant, and Jose Flores, ice plant operators, who are duly authorized to sell their production in the municipalities covered by the application, on the ground that the service proposed is unnecessary, and, if authorized, would only cause ruinous or wasteful competition. Jose Flores, who has leased his plant to oppositor San Miguel Brewery, and the Mariquina Ice Plant have not presented any evidence in support of their oppositions, but have made as their own evidence that presented by the San Miguel Brewery.

The Public Service Commission after considering the evidence of record, found that the demand for ice and for storeroom for refrigeration in the municipalities of San Juan and Mandaluyong is small and limited; that this need is sufficiently and adequately served by the oppositor San Miguel Brewery, and that the applicant has made no sufficient showing that public necessity and convenience require the service proposed by him.

Although as a general rule this court will not disturb the decision of the Public Service Commission if reasonably supported by evidence according to several decisions rendered (Manila Electric Company v. Balagtas, 58 Phil., 429; Ampil v. Public Service Commission, 59 Phil., 556; Calabia v. Orlanes & Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 659; Aleosan Transportation Company v. Public Service Commission, G. R. No. 44523; Mindanao Bus Company v. Maria Cristina Transportation Co., G. R. No. 43628; Espiritu v. San Miguel Brewery, G. R. No. 45161; Javellana v. La Paz Ice Plant, G. R. No. 45163; Gilles v. Halili, 38 Off. Gaz., 1988; Manila Electric Company v. M. R. Mateo, 38 Off. Gaz., 1839; Bulacan Bus Co. v. Enriquez, G. R. Nos. 46085-86), this is a case where we think the petition for review should be granted and the decision of the Public Service Commission reversed. It is admitted that San Juan del Monte has no ice plant or refrigeration establishment; neither has Mandaluyong. San Juan del Monte has a population of around 31,000 inhabitants, whereas Mandaluyong has more than 18,000. The oppositors, Mariquina Ice Plant and the Pasig Ice Plant of Jose Flores, do not now sell or distribute ice in San Juan del Monte and Mandaluyong, though authorized to do so in their certificates of public convenience and necessity, and the ice service in these two localities is furnished solely by the oppositor San Miguel Brewery whose plant is located in Manila, several kilometers away, and which merely maintains in the said localities a delivery truck service and ice boxes handled by independent dealers. We are of the opinion that the public demand for ice can be better met by the establishment of an ice plant in the same municipality where it is to be distributed. In San Miguel Brewery v. Espiritu (60 Phil., 745, 751), we said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It being of general knowledge, and therefore, of judicial knowledge, no evidence is necessary to show that an ice plant in the locality is much more advantageous to the general public as to facility in acquiring said article of commodity, not to say of domestic necessity, without loss in weight, than a plant some kilometers from said locality, which distributes ice to its customers by means of delivery-trucks at certain hours of the day. Even in the case where an outside manufacturer has an ice depository in the locality, this court has found and held that it is always more advantageous to have an ice plant in the same locality. (San Miguel Brewery v. Calumpit Ice Plant, G. R. No. 31550, promulgated January 14, 1930, not reported; Cruz and Lapid v. San Miguel Brewery [1933], 57 Phil., 1017; San Miguel Brewery v. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539.)"

The mere fact that San Miguel Brewery and the other oppositors have authority to sell ice in San Juan del Monte and Mandaluyong is not ground for denying the application of the appellant. This Court once observed that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The mere fact that a holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity is authorized to supply and sell ice in a locality does not prevent the authorization of another holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to supply and sell ice in the same locality when the latter is in a better position to do so than the former, and when his service proves to be better and more beneficial to the inhabitants of said locality, taking into consideration the distance between the municipality where the plant is established and that in which the ice manufactured in said plant is to be sold. This is not a case of a land transportation company with a time-table, whose service may be increased or decreased according to the needs of the public, but that of a company supplying ice manufactured by it, whose efficiency to satisfy the needs of the buying public depends upon its promptness and economy in so doing." (Limjoco v. Public Service Commission and Cabrera, G. R. No. 32831, cited in San Miguel Brewery v. Espiritu, supra.) The rule thus enunciated should apply with more force in the present case where the applicant proposes not only to sell and distribute ice in the localities covered by his application but to establish an ice plant in one of them. Due to the growing importance of ice as a prime necessity of life, the better policy is to facilitate the establishment of ice plants, unless such establishment is not justified or will lead to ruinous or wasteful competition.

The petition is hereby granted and the decision appealed from reversed, without pronouncement regarding costs.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz and Horrilleno, 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






December-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46942 December 2, 1940 - EL GOBIERNO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    070 Phil 720

  • G.R. No. 47800 December 2, 1940 - MAXIMO CALALANG v. A. D. WILLIAMS

    070 Phil 726

  • G.R. No. 47129 December 5, 1940 - PEDRO M. BLANCO v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. 47297 December 5, 1940 - J. C. WILLIS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    070 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 47336 December 5, 1940 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS Y CHARITO GRAY

    070 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 47384 December 6, 1940 - ISIDRO ALEJANDRO Y OTROS v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE BULACAN

    070 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 47468 December 5, 1940 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO D. JERVASIO

    071 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 47564 December 5, 1940 - VETERANS OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTABULARY v. VICENTE ALBERT, ET AL.

    071 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-47755 December 5, 1940 - LINDA MOHAMED BARRUECO v. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL.

    071 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 47940 December 6, 1940 - JUAN SUMULONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    071 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 47633 December 6, 1940 - JUAN S. RUSTIA v. AVELINO R. JOAQUIN

    071 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 46970 December 6, 1940 - ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL CO., INC. v. JUREIDINI, INC.

    071 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 47063 December 7, 1940 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE FRAGANTE

    071 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 47941 December 7, 1940 - MIGUEL CRISTOBAL v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    071 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 47262 December 9, 1940 - JOSE MORENTE v. SALVADOR FIRMALINO

    071 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 47186 December 12, 1940 - FLORENCIO GARDUKE v. ANTAMOK GOLDFIELDS MINING CO.

    071 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 47505 December 12, 1940 - CELERINA LACUESTA, ET AL. v. CORNELIO LESIDAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 47664 December 12, 1940 - PETRA YABES, ET AL. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 47048 December 13, 1940 - VICENTE PERALTA v. JOSE PERALTA

    071 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 47496 December 13, 1940 - JACINTO BALELA v. BENIGNO AQUINO

    071 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. 47534 December 13, 1940 - ANGEL VILLARUZ, ET AL. v. EL JUZGADO DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA DE NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

    071 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 47014 December 14, 1940 - PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS v. ASSOCIATED OIL COMPANY

    071 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 47227 December 14, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MANUEL RIVERA

    071 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 47383 December 14, 1940 - EUGENIO MINTU v. ANTONIO BOBADILLA

    071 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 47506 December 14, 1940 - VICTOR P. HERNANDEZ v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    071 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 47285 December 16, 1940 - LEVY HERMANOS, INC. v. MARIANO R. LACSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 47116 December 17, 1940 - MARIA VILLALON v. MANUEL VILLALON

    071 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 47157 December 18, 1940 - MAXIMINO A. NAZARENO v. SAMAHANG MAGWAGUI

    071 Phil 101

  • G.R. No. 47009 December 19, 1940 - DOMINGO GERIO v. NEMESIO GERIO

    071 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 47029 December 19, 1940 - RUFINO S. ROQUE, ET AL. v. ESPERANZA VIUDA DE LOGAN

    071 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 47108 December 19, 1940 - EL REGISTRADOR DE TITULOS DE NUEVA ECIJA v. JULIANA PENGSON

    071 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 47121 December 19, 1940 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. ESTEBAN ABINGAYAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 112

  • G.R. No. 47231 December 19, 1940 - CARIDAD ESTATES, INC. v. PABLO SANTERO

    071 Phil 114

  • G.R. No. 47233 December 19, 1940 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. PHILIPPINE LABOR UNION

    071 Phil 124

  • G.R. No. 47244 December 19, 1940 - PLACIDO MASICAMPO v. JUSTO LOZADA

    071 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 47248 December 19, 1940 - GERMAN QUIÑONES v. ANICETO PADRIGON

    071 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 47362 December 19, 1940 - JUAN F. VILLAROEL v. BERNARDINO ESTRADA

    071 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 47378 December 19, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PEDRO AQUINO

    071 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 47414 December 19, 1940 - JOSEFA PABLO, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO SAPUNGAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 47431 December 19, 1940 - CONCORDIA CUEVAS v. PEDRO ABESAMIS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 47435 December 19, 1940 - HARRIE S. EVERETT v. LAZARUS G. JOSEPH, ET AL.

    071 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 47464 December 19, 1940 - HOSKYN & CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE A. MARTIN, JR.

    071 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 47469 December 19, 1940 - LAI WOON v. CANDIDO DERIADA

    071 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 47507 December 19, 1940 - ROSARIO LIM QUECO v. ELENA RAMIREZ DE CARTEGA

    071 Phil 162

  • G.R. Nos. 47544 & 47611 December 19, 1940 - MINDANAO BUS COMPANY v. MINDANAO BUS COMPANY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

    071 Phil 168

  • CA 5482 December 20, 1940 - MANUELA GARCIA DE RAMOS, ET AL. v. ALFREDO L. YATCO

    071 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 47095 December 20, 1940 - ANGEL LUCIANO v. AGATON JUAN, ET AL.

    071 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 47276 December 20, 1940 - BASILIA CABRERA v. RICARDO C. LACSON, ET AL.

    071 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 47592 December 20, 1940 - PURIFICACION PASCUA v. MARIANO NABLE

    071 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. 47299 December 21, 1940 - ANGEL T. LIMJOCO v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY

    071 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 47304 December 21, 1940 - TEO TIAM v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 47306 December 21, 1940 - CITY OF MANILA v. MIGUEL GAWTEE, ET AL.

    071 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 47307 December 21, 1940 - MARIO S. PRISCILLA v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    071 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 47314 December 21, 1940 - MARIANO H. LIM, INC. v. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUELICOS, ET AL.

    071 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 47340 December 21, 1940 - LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY v. FERNANDO PERIQUET, ET AL.

    071 Phil 204