TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER ENRIQUE MEDINA AND PUBLIC SER­VICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

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 further more were
determined without due process of law, filed a motion for reconsideration.  Later, on February 25, 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:

(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 on 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:

“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 bane and the concurrence of at least four commissioners
shall be necessary or the promulgation of a final decision or order resolving such motion for reconsideration.”
(Underscoring 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, 1955 with a 3 to 3 vote was
improper.  It is not correct to argue
that there is no such thing as a tie vote 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 fee the
procedure in case of inability of
the re­quisite number of
Commissioners to render a decision:

“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.”

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:

“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.”

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

^[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.