SANTIAGO ICE PLANT & CO., INC., PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. RAFAEL LAHOZ, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

It appears that in June, 1949, the now respondent Rafael Lahoz
filed with said Commission an application for a certificate of public
convenience for the installation and operation of an ice plant of
two-ton capacity in the municipality of Echague, province of Isabela.
The application was opposed by the Santiago Ice Plant & Co., Inc.,
a post-war ice plant operator in the municipality of Santiago of the
same province with authority to sell its ice not only in said
municipality but also in eight others, including Echague. To serve
those nine municipalities, this oppositor had but a small ice plant
capable of producing 2 1/2 tons of ice daily, located in Santiago.
However, in May, 1949, it applied for authority to increase its plant’s
capacity to 7 1/2 tons, and the claim is made that, with this proposed
increase, the installation and operation of another ice plant within
the territory served by the oppositor is no longer necessary and would
only lead to ruinous competition. A hearing was had, and from the
evidence presented the Commission found the facts to be as follows:

” * * * It is established by a preponderance of the
evidence that oppositor has not been rendering adequate and regular
service in Echague notwithstanding the daily steady demand for ice in
this latter town. It appears that many ice users in Echague can not
count with a regular ice service from the Santiago Ice Plant because
said plant does not make regular deliveries of ice in Echague. Also
when people from Echague go to Santiago to buy ice, they do not succeed
in buying because the Santiago Ice Plant very frequently runs out of
ice. There is no question that there is sufficient demand for ice in
Echague to warrant the authorization of a 2-ton plant in that town.
Echague is about 16 kilometers from Santiago and the operation of a
plant in Echague itself will be much more convenient to the people of’
Echague than an ice service from the Santiago Ice Plant. The operation
of applicant’s proposed 2-ton plant will result in promoting the
interests and convenience of the public of Echague and will not bring
about the ruinous competition alleged by oppositor.”

The Commission, therefore, overruled the opposition and granted
Lahoz’s application. We were informed at the hearing that Lahoz’s ice
plant in Echague is already in operation.

In seeking a review of the decision below, counsel for the appellant
contend, in the first plane, that the Commission erred in finding that
the oppositor had not been rendering adequate and regular service. But
we find from an examination of the record that this finding is amply
supported by the evidence and that the question posed by the error
assigned is one of credibility and preponderance of proof. Such
question is not for this Court to determine. In reviewing a decision of
the Public Service Commission, this Court is not supposed to examine
the proof de novo and determine for itself whether or not the
preponderance of evidence really justifies that decision. Out only
function is to determine whether or not there is evidence before the
Commission upon which its decision might reasonably be based. This
Court will not substitute its discretion for that of the Commission on
questions of fact and will not interfere with the latter’s decision
unless it clearly appears that there is no evidence to support it. (I
Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, p. 757). We cannot say from an
examination of the record of this case that the decision below is not
reasonably supported by proof.

To the contention that appellant as an existing operator should
first be given an opportunity to improve and expand its service and
that only upon its failure to do so should a newcomer be allowed to
invade the field, the answer is that in matters of public utility the
convenience and welfare of the public are the paramount considerations,
and this Court has already declared that an ice plant which
manufactures its ice in the locality where it sells that commodity is
more advantageous and convenient to the general public in that locality
than an ice plant located some kilometers away. In the case at bar,
appellant, which has its ice plant in Santiago, wants to monopolize the
sale of ice not only in that municipality but also in eight others,
including Echague. This municipality is about 15 or 16 kilometers from
Santiago and connected with it by a road which is none too good. It
would, of course, be most inconvenient for the inhabitants of Echague
to have to negotiate that distance in order to get a supply of ice,
which in the case of vendors of ice-cream and other frozen foods is
essential to their livelihood. And while appellant boasts of a delivery
service, it appears that, notwithstanding the wide territory to be
served, it has but one vehicle for that purpose, a weapons carrier,
which, like its ice plant, sometimes goes out of order. When it is
furthermore considered that appellant’s past performance leaves much to
be desired, the Commission having found that appellant has been
rendering inadequate and unsatisfactory service, we think the
authorization for a two ton ice plant in Echague is fully justified.

Contrary to the finding of the Public Service Commission, appellant
claims that the authorization of another ice plant in Echague would
lead to ruinous competition. But this claim is not founded on
established facts. Appellant’s certificate covers 9 municipalities.
That its present facilities are not enough to serve such a large
territory may be decuded from the fact that it has applied for
authority to treble the capacity of its plant. With so much apparent
room for expansion and development, appellant may not raise the alarm
that there is bound to be a “ruinous competition” without concrete
proof that the establishment of another ice plant in one of the 9
municipalities served by it would so reduce its business that its
profits would no longer amount to a fair return on its investment.

There being no reason to disturb the decision brought here for
review, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.