Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-24362. February 26, 1968.]

TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER ENRIQUE MEDINA and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondents.

Feria, Feria, Lugtu & Lao and Zoitico A. Tolete for Petitioner.

Generoso O. Almario and Jesus K. Calderon, PSC Legal Division for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER; REMEDY IN CASE OF TIE VOTE. — The provision of law clearly provides that four (4) Commissioners should at least concur before a final decision or order resolving a motion for reconsideration may be promulgated. Obviously, then, the promulgation of the order of February 3, 1965, with a 3 to 3 vote was improper. It is not correct to argue that there is no such thing as a tie vote in the Commission and that the effect was a denial of the motion for reconsideration. The tie referred to here can only be when the Commission sits en banc and is equally divided. Commissioner Medina should not have promulgated the order of February 3, 1965, for the Commission should have referred the matter to the Secretary of Justice for action on his part under the law. The denial of the supplemental motion was merely the consequence of the denial of the motion for reconsideration which, was improper.

2. ID.; ORDERS PRESCRIBING RATES; EFFECTIVITY OF ORDER. — All orders of the Commission to continue an existing service or prescribing rates to be charged shall immediately be operative; all other orders shall become effective upon the dates specified therein. (Sec. 33, Public Service Act). Thus in one case where a division of Commissioners ordered the increase of electric light rates charged by Meralco, the Commission has no discretion to suspend the effectivity of the order continuing existing service or prescribing rates, for only the Supreme Court may do so.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


On November 28, 1961, the Public Service Commission (henceforth referred to as Commission) received Resolution No. 86 of the Municipal Board of Tacloban City pursuing previous requests for reduction of electric rates charged by the Tacloban Electric Light & Ice Plants Company (henceforth referred to as the Plant), holder of a certificate of public convenience under Case No. 59811 of the Commission. The resolution stated that the present rates were too high and that the exemption from all taxes granted to the Plant by Republic Act 2995 enables it to make such a reduction. Later, at the hearing on the audit report of the Auditor General’s Office for the year 1959 (Case No. 61-7099), it was agreed that the Plant’s financial statements for 1961 should be used as basis for the proposed reduction after an independent audit shall have been made.

Almost a year later, on November 9, 1962, Acting Commissioner of Customs Norberto Romualdez wrote the Commission requesting for a reduction of rates charged by the Plant. Consequently, on November 26, 1962, PSC Commissioner Enrique Medina required the Plant, in Case No. 59811 to show cause why the present rates should not be reduced. At the hearing held on December 13, 1962, the present case — No. 59811 — and Case No. 61-7099 were consolidated.

The Commission, in a decision dated May 3, 1963 penned by Commissioner Enrique Medina and concurred in by Associate Commissioners Francisco Perfecto and Gregorio Panganiban, ordered the Plant to reduce its rates by 10% effective June, 1963.

The Plant, on December 11, 1963, 1 claiming that the new rates were unreasonable and confiscatory, and furthermore were determined without due process of law, filed a motion for reconsideration. Later, on February 5, 1965, the Plant filed a supplemental motion thereto.

On February 3, 1965, the motion for reconsideration was denied. 2 The order of denial was signed by Commissioner Enrique Medina, and Associate Commissioners Josias Guinto and Alex de Guzman. Three Associate Commissioners dissented: Commissioners Francisco Perfecto and Jose A. Fornier in separate dissenting opinions with Commissioner Gregorio Panganiban concurring with Commissioner Perfecto. The supplemental motion was also denied on March 12, 1965 with only Commissioner Medina signing the order of denial. 3

The subsequent motions by the Plant, the motion dated March 19, 1965 to set aside, for being allegedly void, promulgation orders dated February 3 and March 12, 1965, and the motion dated March 24, 1965, to break the tie vote, were not set for hearing upon order of Commissioner Medina who believed the motions to be merely elusive efforts to prevent enforcement of the decision dated May 3, 1963.

The Plant, in a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction, seeks before Us to set aside the promulgation orders of February 3, and March 12, 1965, to enjoin the enforcement of the decision of May 3, 1963, to order the breaking of the tie vote and to suspend the period for appeal from the decision.

The petition raises the following issues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Was the promulgation of the order of February 3, 1965 denying the motion for reconsideration and the order of March 12, 1965 denying the supplemental motion, improper in the absence of four (4) concurring Commissioners as required by Section 3, last paragraph, Public Service Act, as amended?

(b) Is the enforcement of the decision of May 3, 1963 an error?

With regard to the validity of the promulgation of the February 3, 1965 order, it is pertinent to consider the provisions of Section 3, paragraph 3 of the Public Service Act as amended by Republic Act 2677:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That any motion for reconsideration of a decision or non- interlocutory order of any commissioner or division shall be heard directly by the Commission en banc and the concurrence of at least four commissioners shall be necessary for the promulgation of a final decision or order resolving such motion for reconsideration." (Emphasis ours)

This provision of law clearly provides that four (4) Commissioners should at least concur before a final decision or order resolving a motion for reconsideration may be promulgated. Obviously, then, the promulgation of the order of February 3, 1965 with a 3 to 3 vote was improper. It is not correct to argue that there is no such thing as a tie vote in the Commission and that the effect was a denial of the motion for reconsideration. The last sentence of the first paragraph of section 3 of the Act, as amended, provides for the procedure in case of inability of the requisite number of commissioners to render a decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In the event of a tie vote among the Commissioners, the Secretary of Justice may designate such number of Judges of the Courts of First Instance or such number of Attorneys of the legal division of the Commission, as may be necessary, to sit temporarily as Commissioners in the Public Service Commission."cralaw virtua1aw library

The tie referred to here can only be when the Commission sits en banc and is equally divided. Commissioner Medina should not have promulgated the order of February 3, 1965, for the Commission should have tried to resolve the impasse and if it failed, should have referred the matter to the Secretary of Justice for action on his part under the law.

The denial of the supplemental motion was merely the consequence of the denial of the motion for reconsideration which, as stated, was improper.

Regarding the enforcement of the decision dated May 3, 1963, We find that Commissioner Medina was well within his authority to do so. Section 33, last part of the Public Service Act, as amended, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"All orders of the Commission to continue an existing service or prescribing rates to be charged shall immediately be operative; all other orders shall become effective upon the dates specified therein."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, in one case 4 where a division of Commissioners ordered the increase of electric light rates charged by the Meralco, We held that under Section 33 of the law as amended, the Commission has no discretion to suspend the effectivity of the order continuing existing service or prescribing rates, for only the Supreme Court may do so.

WHEREFORE, the orders of February 3, 1965 and March 12, 1965 are hereby annulled and the case is remanded to the Public Service Commission for further deliberation and, if necessary, for reference to the Secretary of Justice under Sec. 3, first paragraph, of the Public Service Act, without prejudice to the immediate effectivity-that is, as of June 1963, of the decision of May 3, 1963. No costs. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Copy of the PSC decision was allegedly received by the Plant only on Dec. 4, 1963.

2. Annex I, pp. 52 of the Record.

3. Annex L, pp. 47 of the Record.

4. Manila Electric Co. v. PSC, L-24406, June 29, 1965.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA