TERESA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND FILIPINAS CEMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition to review and set aside the decision
of the Public Service Commission dated March 15, 1963 in Case No. 62-3521 granting to the Filipinas Cement Corporation
– hereinafter referred to as Filipinas – a certificate of public convenience and necessity to establish,
maintain and operate an electric plant in its factory site at Teresa, Rizal,
for period of fifty years from June 26,
1958.  By resolution of September
11, 1963, we denied petitioners petition for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction restrain­ing the Commission from enforcing its
decision during the pendency of the appeal.

The Teresa Electric Light
and Power Co., Inc., – here­inafter referred to as petitioner – is a
domestic corporation operating an electric plant in Teresa, Rizal, under a sub­sisting certificate of
public convenience and necessity issued
on June 2, 1960 (PSC Case No. 129940), while the respondent
Filipinas is likewise a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and
sale of cement.

On May 24, 1962 Filipinas filed an application with the Public Service Commission for a certificate
of public convenient to install, maintain and operate an electric plant in
Sitio Kaysapon of barrio Pamanaan, municipality of Teresa, Rizal, for the purpose of
supplying electric power and light to its cement factory and its employees
living within its compound.

Petitioner filed
its written opposition alleging:  that it
is the
duly authorized operator of an electric light, heat and power service in
Teresa, Rizal; that Filipinas is not authorized by its articles of
incorporation to operate an electric plant; that the Municipal Council of
Teresa had not authorized it neither to operate the proposed service; that it
is willing to supply Filipinas’ need for electricity; and that Filipinas’ prin­cipal
business does not come within the jurisdiction of the respondent Commission.

Answering the opposition, Filipinas averred that, under paragraph
7 of its articles of incorporation, it is authorized to operate the proposed
electric plant; that there is no need for securing the approval of the Muni­cipal
Council before operating its electric plant as this is not a necessary requisite for the issuance of a cer­tificate
of public convenience inasmuch as it
already possesses the 3 basic requirements
of law, namely: Fili­pino citizenship, financial capacity and the need
for the service in the interest and convenience of the consuming public.

During the hearings before the Commission Filipinas presented its
evidence and petitioner’s counsel cross-examined the witnesses.  Upon
the resumption of the hear­ing on December 17, 1962, petitioners counsel filed an
urgent motion for the postponement of the presentation of its evidence that day
alleging that
he was to attend a preliminary hearing at Caloocan City.  As the date agreed upon by the parties was
set only after the attorneys for the parties had consulted their respective
calendar, the Commission,
in open court, denied said motion and con­sidered the application as submitted for resolution.

Upon consideration of the evidence, oral and documen­tary,
adduced by Filipinas to the effect that the proposed electric service will be
limited to the exclusive needs of its cement
factory and to give light facilities to its employees living in the
compound only, without adversely affecting
the interests and services of petitioner; that like the latter, Filipinas will
not generate its own electric
current but buy it from the MERALCO; and that no municipal streets will be traversed by its electric wires and posts except small portions of private
properties, the Commission, pursuant to section 15 of Commonwealth Act 146, as
amended, issued a certificate of public conveniences
to it on March 15, 1963, subject to the conditions set forth therein.

Petitioner filed a motion to set aside
the above decision and re–open the case but the same was denied en banc on August
12, 1963.  Hence the instant
petition for
review
filed on September 9 of the same year.

Considering the assignment of errors made in peti­tioners brief,
the following are the questions to be resolved In this appeal:  firstly, whether or not Fili­pinas should
have secured either a municipal or legis­lative franchise before it could be
entitled to a cer­tificate of public convenience and necessity to operate and
maintain an electric plant; secondly, whether under its articles of
incorporation Filipinas is authorized
to operate and maintain an electric plant; and lastly, whether Filipinas could
be granted a certificate of public convenience and necessity to
operate and maintain an electric plant notwithstanding the existence of an electric
plant operator in the same municipality.

In relation to the first question petitioner contends that under
the provisions of Act No. 667 of the Philippine Commission, a municipal or legislative fran­chise
is a condition precedent to the granting to Fili­pinas
of a certificate of public
convenience and neces­sity to operate and maintain an electric plant.

Section 1 of the act mentioned above requires the filling of a formal application with the Council of the
municipality in which or through which the petitioner desires to construct or
maintain its line, stating, among other things, the rate per month to be
charged for electric light by lamp of specified standard candle-power, and by
amount of electricity consumed where a meter is used, and the rate per centum
of the gross receipts
which petitioner is willing to pay into the provincial treasury for the franchise. 
Paragraphs 2 and 3, section 2 of the same act also provide that not less
than one-half of one per centum of the gross earnings shall be paid into the
provincial treasury, and that the rates to be charged shall always be subject
to regulations by act of the Philippine Com­mission or the legislative body of
the Islands.

The above requirements show that the act was in­tended to apply
exclusively to any person or
corporation who desires a franchise to construct and maintain an electric line or power
plant and line for business purposes, that is, to render service to the general public
at such rate of compensation as may be approved and re­gulated by the
government.  Cleary, therefore, it should
not be made to apply to Filipinas who applied for a cer­tificate of public
convenience and service to operate and maintain an electric plant exclusively
for its own
use in connection with the operation of its cement factory and for the use of its employees living
within the compound of the factory – the latter to service free of charge.

It is, consequently, our
view that all that Fili­pinas needs for the purpose above mentioned is a certi­ficate of public convenience and
necessity such as the one granted to it by the respondent Public Service
Commission.

In relation to the second question, it appears that the Articles
of Incorporation of Filipinas (paragraph 7)
provide for authority to secure from any governmental, state,
municipality, or provincial, city or other authority and to utilize and dispose
of any lawful manner,
rights, powers, privileges, franchises and concessions – obviously necessary or
at least related to the operation of its cement factory.  Moreover, said Articles of Incorporation also
provide that the corporation may generally perform any and all acts connected
with the business of manu­facturing portland cement or arising therefrom or incidental
thereto.

It can not be denied that the operation of an electric light,
heat and power plant is necessarily con­nected with the business of manufacturing cement.  If in the modern world where we live today electricity is vir­tually
a necessity for our daily needs, it is more so
in the case of industries like the manufacture of cement.

Upon the last question, petitioner claims that Filipinas is not
entitled to a certificate of public convenience to maintain and operate
electric service for its cement plant and its employees because petitioner is operating
an electric plant in the same municipality where Filipinas cement plant is
located.

While it is true that operators of public con­venience and
service deserve some protection from un­necessary or unlawful competition, yet
the rule is that nobody has any exclusive right to secure a franchise or a
certificate of public convenience.  Above
any or all considerations, the grant of franchises and certificates of public convenience and service
should be guided by public service and interest; the latter are the primor­dial considerations
to be taken into account.

Moreover, it has
been established in this case that petitioner was in no condition to supply the
power needs of Filipinas, because its load capacity was only 200 Kilowatts while
Filipinas was in need of 6,000
Kilowatts power to operate its cement factory.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is
affirmed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando,
JJ., concur.