G.R. No. L-5619. November 22, 1954

En 24 de julio de 1950 la Butuan Sawmill, Inc., presento una
solicitud a la Comision de Servicios Publicos (causa No. 57855)
pidiendo que se expidiese a su favor un certificado de conveniencia
publica para instalar y operar una fabrica de fluido electrico en el
municipio de Nasipit, Agusan, de acuerdo con la franquicia concedida
por la Ley de la Republica No. 497. Contra esta solicitud se opuso la
Bayview Theater Co. Inc., en 21 do septiembro del mismo ano, alegando
que ya habia solicitado a la Comision, en la causa No. 57212, la
aprobacion de la franquicia concedida a ella por el consejo municipal
de Nasipit para instalar y operar una fabrica de fluido electrico en el
mismo municipio; que despues de concedida la franquicia municipal
coraenzo inmediatamente los trabajos de instalacion, y luego inauguro
el servicio electrico en dicho municipio; que hasta entonces nadie
habia pensado en proveer servicio electrico sino cuando la recurrida ya
habia comenzado a suministrarlo.

Las dos causas fueron vistas conjuntamente en 3 de julio de 1951
ante el Comisionado Hon. Feliciano Ocampo, y parte de las pruebas
fueron prescntadas ante el jefe de la division industrial de la
Comision.

Sometidas las causas, la Comision de Servicios Publicos dicto
sentencia en 1.° de marzo de 1952, denegando la solicitud de la Butuan
Sawmill, Inc. en la causa No. 57855 y concediendo la solicitud de la
Bayview Theater, Co., Inc. en la causa No. 57212. Dentro del plazo
reglamentario, la recurrente presento peticion de revision.

La recurrente alega que la Comision de Servicios Publicos erro (1)
al sobreseer su solicitud por haber dejado de instalar y opcrar la
fabrica de fluido electrico en el municipio de Nasipit dentro de un ano
y medio desde la aprobacion de la franquicia legislativa, como lo exigo
el articulo 1.° de la Ley de la Republica No. 497; (2) al no declarar
que la franquicia mediante ley concedida a la recurrente es preferente
a la franquicia municipal concedida a la recurrida; y (3) que la
decision es contraria a las pruebas obrantes en autos.

Las conclusiones de hecho de la Comision de Servicios Publicos son las siguientes:

“It appears from the records and the evidence
presented at the hearing of these cases that, on November 5, 1948, the
Municipal Mayor of Nasipit, on demand of the people, requested the
Rayview Theater Co., Inc. to render electric service to the people of
Nasipit; that the Bayview Theater Co., Inc., acting on said request of
the Municipal Mayor applied to the Municipal Council of Nasipit for a
special permit to install and operate its 10 Kva, generating1 unit in
the municipality of Nasipit; that the special permit was granted by the
Municipal Council of Nasipit in its Resolution No. 38, dated May 28,
1949, that by virtue of said special permit, Bayview Theater Co., Inc.
installed and o operated its 10 Kva. generating unit and commenced the
rendition of its service on August 15, 1949, and that the Bayview
Theater Co., Inc., since the commencement of its operation has been and
is at present continuously rendering electric service in Nasipit.

“On
May 17, 1950 the Municipal Council of Nasipit granted Bayview Theater
Co., Inc., a franchise in its Resolution No. 34. On May 30, 1950, the
Provincial Board of Agusan passed Resolution No. 121, forwarding to the
Public Service Commission Resolution No. 34, series of 1950, of the
Municipal Council of Nasipit and recommending its approval. The Bayview
Theater Co., Inc., filed its application in Case No. 57212 on June G,
1950. In a letter dated June 23, 1950, the Commission advised the
Bayview Theater Co., Inc., to secure from the Provincial Board of
Agusan express approval and not just a recommendation for approval of
its municipal franchise. On June 7, 1950, the Municipal Council of
Nasipit passed Resolution No. 37 protesting to the President of the
Philippines against the approval of House Bill No. 591, granting a
franchise to Butuan Sawmill, Inc. The Bill was signed by the President
and became Act No. 497 on June 12, 1950. In view of the enactment of
Act No. 497, the Provincial Board of Agusan adopted Resolution No. 142
on June 30, 1950 disapproving the action taken by the Municipal Council
of Nasipit in protesting against the approval of the bill granting the
franchise to Butuan Sawmill, Inc. On July 11, 1950, however the
Provincial Board passed Resolution No. 150, approving Resolution No.
34, dated May 17, 1950, of the Municipal Council of Nasipit, granting
the franchise to Bayview Theater Co., Inc. The Butuan Sawmill, Inc.,
filed its application in Case No. 57855 on July 24, 1950.

“Bayview
Theater Co., Inc., is a corporation duly registered in the Securities
and Exchange Commission, 90% of the capital of which are owned by
Filipino citizens. The authorized capital of the Company is P50,000,
At the time of incorporation, the subscribed capital was P14,650 Ibid
the paid-up capital was P13,650. The paid-up capital has since been
increased to P24,000. Most of the incorporators are employees of the
Nasipit Lumber, Inc. The stockholders of the Company are living in
about ninety percent of the total number of houses in the poblacion of
Nasipit. The company established first a theater in Nasipit and later
extended the facilities of theater to render electric service to the
streets and people of Nasipit. When it commenced the rendition of its
electric service on August 15, 1949, it had in operation of 10 Kva.
generating unit. To meet the demand of the public, the Company replaced
the 10 Kva. unit with a 50 Kva. unit in February 1950. It has fully
paid for all the equipment including the generating unit, the
transformers, and lines and the power house. It is not indebted for any
equipment used in the electric plant. At the beginning of its
operation, the Company was losing but at the present time, the expenses
of rendering the service are about equal to the revenues. There are now
144 customers served with a prospect of 30 additional customers in the
future. The operation of the plant has improved the town. Prior to the
rendition of the electric service, the only recreational facilities in
the town of Nasipit were a cockpit and the theater owned by the
Company. As a result of the operation of the electric plant, wholesome
recreational establishments were opened such as boxing shows and
bowling alleys. The use of refrigerators enabled the refreshment
parlors to serve cold drinks and the installation of electric lights
enable the private school to offer evening classes.

“The
Butuan Sawmill, Inc. is a Corporation duly organized under the laws of
the Philippines. It’s authorized capital stock is P500,000 all of which
have been subscribed and paid. It is a closed corporation composed of
Rafael Consing who has been its president since its organization in
1920 and his children who are all Filipino citizens. The corporation
besides engaging in the lumber and shipping business is an electric
plant operator. It is a holder of reconstituted certificates of public
convenience and necessity for the operation of electric services in the
City of Butuan and in the municipality of Cabadbaran, Agusan, and is at
present operating power plants and actually rendering electric services
in said city and municipality. As grantee of the franchise for the
operation of ah electric service in the municipality of Nasipit, under
Republic Act No. 497, which is subject to Act No. 8636 as amended, the
Butuan Sawmill, Inc. has filed its written acceptance of the terms and
conditions of said franchise and has executed surety bond in the amount
of P1,000 within the period fixed in Act No. 3636, as amended.

“With
regards to the public necessity and convenience of an electric service
in the town of Nasipit, it appears that the said town is located at the
Bay of Nasipit which is one of the best harbors in Northern Mindanao.
It is the port through which logs and lumber from the province of
Agusan are exported to foreign countries. There are about 300 houses’
in the poblacion and another 300 in outlying barrios. Electric service
is, therefore, urgently needed in the town of Nasipit.

“The
records show that the needs of the inhabitants of Nasipit ‘can be
adequately served by one electric plant operator. The question to be
resolved by this Commission is who of the two applicants should be
authorized to operate an electric service in Nasipit.”

Estas conclusiones estan sostenidas por las pruebas. El hecho de que
no apareciese en la transcripcion de las notas taquigraficas que el 90
por ciento de las easas en la poblacion de Nasipit cstan ocupadas por
los accionista de la Bayview Theater Co., Inc., no es razdn suficiente
para que se revoque la decision; es un detalle tan insignificante que,
aun descartandolo de la decision, no altera en conjunto de los hechos
esonciales probados.

La recurrente contiende que no podia comenzar la instalacion de la
fabrica, porque (a) el articulo 8 de’ la Ley No. 3636, tal como fue
enmendada por la Ley del Commonwealth No. 132, dispone que “the grantee
shall not exercise any rights or privileges under this franchise, nor
commence any construction thereunder, unless and until the grantee
shall first file with the Public Service Commission within one hundred
and twenty days from the date of the approval of this Act,” porque (b)
el articulo 9 de dicha ley dispone que “after compliance with the
requirements of the next preceding section, the Public Service
Commission or its legal successor, by proper order or writ, shall
authorize the construction of necessary work for the purposes of this
franchise, within a reasonable time to be determined by the said
Commission”, y porque, (c) ademas, el articulo 18 de la Ley No. 146
dispone que es ilegal “to engage in any public service business without
having first secured from the Commission a certificate of public
convenience * * * except grantees of legislative franchise, expressly
exempting such grantees from the requirement of securing a certificate
from the Commission”.

La Comision de Servicios Publicos—arguye la recurrenter—solo dicta
su decision en estas dos causas en 1.° de marzo de 1952; por tanto, la
recurrente no podia comenzar la instalacion dentro del ano y medio
concedido por la Ley No. 497, que termina en 12 de diciembre de 1951.

Para armonizar las disposiciones de las tres leyes citadas, el ano y
medio concedido a la recurrente—segun ella—debe comenzar, no desde la
aprobacion de la Ley No. 497, sino .desde la expedicidn a su favor del
certificado de conveniencia y necesidad publicas. Esta pretension es
insostenible. La Ley No. 497 dispone que “Con sujecion a los terminos y
condiciones establecidos en la Ley Numero Tres Mil seiscientos treinta
y seis, segun esta reformada por la Ley Numero Ciento treinta y dos del
Commonwealth, * * * se concede a la Butuan Sawmill, Incorporated, por
un periodo de cincuenta afios desde la aprobacion de esta Ley, el
derecho, privilegio y autorizacion para construir, sostener y explotar
una fabrica de alumbrado, calefaccion y fuerza motriz electricos con el
objeto de producir y distribuir luz, calor y fuerza motriz electricos
para su venta dentro de los limites del municipio de Nasipit, Provincia
de Agusan: Entendiendose, Que el poseedor de la franquicia que se concede por esta Ley,
empezara a explotarla dentro de un ano y medio desde la aprobacion de
dicha franquicia, si no es un empresario en la actualidad; y dentro de
seis meses si ya es poseedor de una franquicia municipal. El
incumplimiento de este requisite dara lugar ipso facto a la
cancelacion y anulacion de la franquicia,” Al tiempo de la aprobacion
de la ley, la recurrente no cxplotaba aun el negocio de fluido
electrico en Nasipit, ni poseia una franquicia municipal; por tanto,
debia comenzar a explotar el negocio dentro de una aiio y medio desde
la aprobacion de dicha ley. La falta de cumplimiento de dicha condicion ipso facto
dio lugar a la cancelacion de la franquicia. El Bill No. 591 o proyecto
de ley presentado al efecto contenia la siguiente nota explicativa: “In
said municipality (Nasipit), there is no electric plant to furnish the
locality with light facilities. It is certainly a blessing for the
residents of said municipality if this franchise bill be approved.”
(Exhibit 1, Bayview Records, Case No. 57855.)

En aquel tiempo el gobierno encaminaba todos sus esfuerzos por
rehabilitar los servicios de utilidad publica destrozados por la
guerra, facilitar el establicimiento de cualquier actividad o empresa
para acelerar el mejoramiento de las condiciones economicas dislocadas
por la guerra. Al. aprobar el Bill No. 591 el Congreso tenia
evidentemente el proposito de apresurar el establecimiento de la
fabrica de fluido electrico en el municipio de Nasipit, y por eso,
impuso, como condicion, la de que la recurrente comenzarse el
establecimiento de la fabrica dentro del plazo fijado despues de
concedida la franquicia que ella solicitaba, y el Presidente, al
aprobar la Ley No. 497, indudablemente tenia tambien el deseo de que
alii se estableciese cuanto antes un servicio de fluido electrico. El
Congreso sabia el tiempo que se pierde para la concesion de un
certificado de conveniencia publica; que si no ponia la condicion de un
aiio y medio, mucho tiempo transcurriria hasta que el municipio de
Nasipit obtuviese servicio de fluido electrico. Era la epoca de la
reconstruccion de las areas destruidas y la reorganizacion de todos los
elementos disponibles para que el pais saliese de aquella condicion
caotica.

Esa condition de comenzar a explotar el negocio de fluido electrico
dentro del ano y medio despues de aprobada la Ley No. 497 es
incompatible con las disposiciones de los articulos 8 y 9 de la Ley No.
3636, tal como fue enmendada y articulo 18 de la Ley No. 146: si se
cumplen estas tres disposiciones legates se infringe aquella condicion
de un ano y medio. Las disposiciones de las leyes citadas son
aplicables a todos los solicitantes de certificado de conveniencia y
necesidad publicas en general; pero la condicion impuesta por la Ley
No. 497 de que se instalase dentro de un ano y medio inmediatamente
despues de concedida la franquicia, es imperativa para este caso
particular, y tan imperativa que sin su cumplimiento queda cancelada la
franquicia. La l”!ey especial que concede una franquicia tiene la
indole de contrato privado: se adopta ordinariamente despues de haberse
tenido en cuenta por el Congreso las circunstancias especiales que
tiene que remediar y los derechos privados en rclacion con los
beneficios resultantes para el Estado (Manila Railroad Co. contra
Rafferty, 40 Jur. Fil., 237). La Ley No. 497 se considera como
excepcion general que regula la concesion de certificados de
conveniencia y necesidad publicas.

” ‘Special provisions relating to specific subjects
control general provisions relating to general subjects. The things
specially treated will be considered as exceptions to the general
provisions.’” (City of Birmingham vs. Southern Express Co.
164 Ala 529, 51 So 159.) “Where there are two laws relating to the same
subject they must be read together and the provisions of one having a
special application to a particular subject will be deemed to be a
qualification of, or an exception to, the other act general in its
terms.” (Mark D. Eaglcton vs. Richard Murphy, 138 A. L. R., 749.)

“A special statute controls a general statute relating to the same .subject-matter. Stadler vs. City of Helena, 46 Mont. 128, 127, P. 454; Daley vs. Torrey, supra; Franzke vs. Fergus Country, 176 Mont. 150, P. 962; Indian Fred vs. State, 36 Ariz., 48, 282 P. 930; State vs. White, 41 Utah, 480, 120 P. 331; In re Estate, 169 Cal. 77, 145 P. 1008; Country Sanitation District vs. Payne, 197 Cal. 448, 241 P. 264; 25 R. C. L., 929; State vs. Preston, 103 Or. 631, 206 P. 304, 23 A. L. R. 414; Ahern vs. Livermohe Union High School District, 20S Cal. 770, 284 P. 1105; .Wulf vs.
Fitzpatrick, 124 Kan. 642, 261 P. 838. A. special statute covering a
particular subject-matter must be read as an exception to the statute
covering the same and other subjects in general terms. State ex. rcl.
Special Road District vs. Millis, 81 Mont. 86, 261 P. 885; Western & Southern Indemnity Co. vs.
Chicago Title & Trust Co. 128 Ohio St. 422, 191 N. K. 462. Where
special and general statutes relate to the same subject-matter, the
special act will prevail as far as the particular subject-matter comes
within its provisions. State ex rel. McDowell, Inc., vs.
Smith, 334 Mo. 653, 67 S. W. (2d) 50; United States us. Hess (C. C. A.)
71 F. (2d) 78.” (Re Estate of Charles Wilson, 105 A. L. R., 367.)

Es principio Men establecido de hermaneutica legal el de que las
disposiciones especiales deben prevalecer sobre las disposiciones
generates, y este Tribunal aplico esta doctrina en varios casos: “No
pueden aplicarsedijo en Arayata contra Joyaal presente caso,
como lo ha hecho el Tribunal a quo, las disposiciones del Codigo Civil
referentes a los bienes de la sociedad de gananciales, puesto que la
Ley que regula la adquisicion, disposicion y transmision de los
derechos sobre terrenos de los frailes, adquiridos por el Gobierno
Insular, establece reglas que estan en pugna con dichas disposiciones
del Codigo Civil, y siendo este cuerpo legal de caracter general y la
Ley No. 1120 de caracter especial, esta es de preferente aplicacion.”
(51 Jur.Fil., 689.) “El articulo 176 del Codigo de Procidimientodijo en
Leyte A. & M. Oil Co. contra Block, Johnston &
Greenbaum,no es tan terminante ni completo para los casos de
insolvencia como las disposiciones contenidas en la Ley de Insolvencia,
cuyos precedimientos son definitivos en cuanto a la disposicion de los
creditos, lo cual no ocurre en las actuaciones sobre depositaria. Por
consiguiente, no erro el Juzgado a quo al declararse competente en las
presentcs actuaciones y al no sobreseerlas.” (52 Jur. Fil., 442.) “Las
disposiciones del Codigo de Procedimiento Civildijo en Philippine Trust
Co. contra Macuan,referentes a la administracion y al
inventario de los bienes de la pupila demente casada o no, son de
caracter general, puesto que afectan a todos los bienes de la misma
indistintamente; al paso que las disposiciones del Codigo Civil
referentes a la administracion de los bienes de la misma pupila demente
casada son de caracter especial; por consiguiente, estas deben
aplicarse con preferencia a aquellas, no siendo posible armonizar ambas
disposiciones legales.” . (54 Jur. Fil., 700.) “Porque el no haber el
demandado—dijo en Sancho contra Lizarraga—aportado a la
sociedad toda la cantidad por el prometida solo tuvo el efecto de
constituirle en deudor a la sociedad de dicha suma y de sus intereses
ademas de los danos que por tal motivo se hubieron ocasionado, sin que
de ello naciera para el demandante el derecho de exigir la rescision
del contrato social, bajo el articulo 1124 del mismo Codigo.
Este ultimo articulo no puede aplicarse al caso presente pues, se
refiere a la resolution de las obligaciones en general, mientras los
referidos articulos 1681 y 1682 atanen especificamente al contrato de
sociedad en particular. Y es principio bien sabido que los preceptos
especiales deben prevalecer sobre los generales.” (55 Jur. Fil., 643.)

Esta doctrina ha sido reafirmada en Philippine Railway Co. contra Collector of Internal Revenue, 91 Phil., 3,5, (Marzo 25, 1952) y en Visayan Electric contra
David, 92 Phil., 969, 49 Off. Gaz., 1385. Cuanto al segundo error, la
recurrente no puede reclamar preferencia porque ella no cumplio con la
condicion impuesta por la ley.

Se confirma la decision apelada con costas contra la recurrente.

Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion y Reyes, J.B.L., JJ,, estan conformes.

Paras, J., esta conforme con el resultado.

---

CONCURRING

 BENGZON, J.:

I concur. For having failed to “start operation” within one and
one-half years from June 12, 1950, the Butuan Sawmill forfeited its
franchise granted by Rep. Act No. 497.

After the approval of said Act it was unnecessary for
petitioner previously to get a certificate of public convenience from
the Public Service Commission before beginning business, the question
of convenience having already been determined favorably by Congress
upon the approval of Rep. Act No. 497. Indeed, Act No. 3636 as amended
by Com. Act No. 132 clearly contemplates that before approving a franchise for electric light and power, the Congress should be satisfied of its convenience. Wherefore, it must be presumed
that when it approved Rep. Act No. 497 Congress was convinced of the
convenience of permitting the Butuan Sawmill to operate its franchise.

It is true that under Act 3636 and Com. Act 132 a certificate of public convenience issued by the Public Service Commission should be filed
before the Congress approves a franchise. But that does not prevent
Congress from dispensing with such certificate on occasion, and
approving a grant of franchise—as it did in this case.

Reason and logic would conclude that in approving the franchise, Congress could not have intended^[1]
to empower the Public Service Commission to nullify the grant, upon a
finding that its operation is not for public convenience. Why, that is
the first question the Congress decides, and should decide, in the
grant of franchises?

There is a ground for suspicion that the petitioner, in effect, attempted indirectly to extend the time
fixed by Republic Act No. 497 (1 1/2 years) to start operation, by
means of this doubtful expedient of addressing a petition to the Public
Service Commission and then leisurely waiting for its resolution.
Moreover, conceding that it was essential to secure the certificate of
the Public Service Commission before starting operations. I believe
that petitioner having been to obtain it, did not obtain it within one
and one-half years from June 12, 1950. Hence its franchise lapsed, ex vi termini.

Petitioner argues that its failure to obtain the certificate was due
to the delay in the proceedings before the Public Service Commission.
Nevertheless, it does not appear that the latter was urged to decide
promptly on account of the deadline. And surely, mandamus was available
if such governmental body had been remiss in the performance of its
functions. Anyway, in the matter of privileges granted subject to
conditions, the maxim dura lex sed lex may properly be applied. Se
confirma la sentencia.

---

^[1] In the absence of clear indication.