NATIVIDAD ARIAGA, PETITIONER, VS. ELPIDIO JAVELLANA, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for review of the order of Commissioner
Gabriel P. Prieto dated January 29, 1951, and the order of Commissioner Quintin
Paredes, Jr., dated February 1, 1951, entered upon a motion for reconsideration
filed by oppositor Elpidio Javellana, which modified the decision in bane of the
Public Service Commission dated March 28, 1950, by holding that the ice plants
applied for in cases Nos. 46997, 48871 and 49378 should be established not
within the city of Iloilo but somewhere within the Province of Iloilo in the
place or places where the applicants may wish to establish them provided that
they so notify the Commission by amending their applications. These orders were
maintained in subsequent resolutions issued respectively by said Commissioners
on May 11, 1951.

This petition stems from three applications filed separately by
Mariano Cacho, Juan Salvador and Natividad Ariaga with the Public Service
Commission in which the applicants ask for a certificate of public convenience
to install, maintain and operate a 30-ton ice plant with a cold storage service
in the city of Iloilo and with the right and authority to sell ice not only
within the said city but as well in all the municipalities of the Province of
Iloilo. These three applications were opposed by Elpidio Javellana and La Paz
Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc., two old ice plants operators in the city
and Province of Iloilo.

The three applications were, by agreement of the parties, heard
jointly, and on March 28, 1950, the Public Service Commission rendered a joint
decision, penned by Hon. Feliciano Ocampo and concurred in by Associate
Commissioners Gabriel P. Prieto and Quintin Paredes, Jr., granting to the three
applicants, including petitioner herein, a certificate of public convenience to
install and operate an ice plant of 15-ton daily capacity and a cold storage
room of 10,000 cubic feet within the City of Iloilo and with authority and right
to sell their produce not only in the City of Iloilo but also in .the Province
of Iloilo. Oppositor Elpidio Javellana filed a motion for reconsideration on
April 25, 1950, whereas La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc., filed with
the Supreme Court a petition for review of the decision rendered on March 28,
1950. Upon being advised of the pendency of said petition for review, the Public
Service Commission refrained from acting on the motion for reconsideration
because it did not consider it proper to act on it until the matter had been
finally acted upon by the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co.,
Inc., withdrew its appeal, and so Elpidio Javellana asked the Commission to act
on his motion for reconsideration. This move was again denied which forced
Elpidio Javellana to file with the Supreme Court a petition for mandamus. In a
decision promulgated on December 21, 1950, the Supreme Court held that the
petition for review filed by the La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc.,
did not have the effect, insofar as Elpidio Javellana is concerned, of
withdrawing the cases from the jurisdiction of the respondent Commission, or of
depriving it of its jurisdiction, so that it could act if it wanted to on the
motion for reconsideration filed by Elpidio Javellana on April 25, 1950, and,
accordingly, it ordered said Commission to act on said motion for
reconsideration as prayed for.

By virtue of the directive of this court, the Public Service
Commission acted upon the petition for reconsideration of Elpidio Javellana, but
in so doing three separate orders were entered: one issued by Hon. Feliciano
Ocampo dated January 11, 1951, wherein he found that the motion for
reconsideration has no merit, and, therefore, there is no reason to alter or
modify the decision of the court in banc dated March 28, 1950; another entered
by Hon. Gabriel P. Prieto dated January 29, 1951, wherein he maintained the view
that the decision of the Commission should be modified in the sense of granting
the applicants the right to install, operate and maintain their ice plants only
within the Province of lioilo; and the third one issued by Hon. Quintin Paredes,
Jr. dated February 1, 1951, wherein he concurred in the opinion of Commissioner
Prieto but with the modification that the ice plants which applicants are
allowed to operate should be installed in the places that may be designated by
said applicants within the Province of Iloilo.

On February 20, 1951, Natividad Ariaga, petitioner herein,
filed a motion for reconsideration of the orders entered by Commissioners
Gabriel P. Prieto and Quintin Paredes, Jr. on January 29, 1951 and February 1,
1951, respectively, setting forth therein the reasons lie is invoking why the
original decision of the Commission should be maintained, but this petition, as
well as tiiose filed by the other applicants who are affected thereby, were
denied by the Public Service Commission by split vote as follows: Commissioners
Prieto and Paredes, Jr. voted to deny the petition for reconsideration, and
Commissioner Ocampo voted to approve it and to maintain the original decision of
the Commission dated March 28, 1950. This split vote gave rise to the present
petition for review.

The main purpose of the present petition for review is to seek
the nullification of the orders of Commissioners Prieto and Paredes, Jr. wherein
they modified the decision in banc dated March 28, 1950, in the sense of
allowing the applicants the right to install their ice plants somewhere within
the Province of Iloilo and not within the city as allowed them in the original
decision. Petitioner maintains that this modification is unfair and prejudicial
to her interest not only because of the heavy investment already made by her in
line with the express authority granted by the Public Service Commission but
also because said modification is not justified by the pleadings nor by the
evidence submitted by the parties in the three cases that were joined herein,
which all point to the necessity of establishing the ice plants in the City of
Iloilo.

We believe that the present petition is well taken. There is
one development that should be mentioned here which in our opinion disposes of
this case in support of the stand taken by the petitioner. We refer to the
petition for certiorari interposed by the La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage
Co., Inc., in the three cases herein involved on August 22, 1950, wherein said
company sought the reversal of the unanimous decision of the Public Service
Commission dated March 28, 1950, not only on procedural grounds, but on the
strength of the evidence submitted by the parties (G. R. Nos. L-4053-4055). The
questions therein raised, among others, were: (a) that the decision of the
Public Service Commission dated March 28, 1950, which authorizes three new
operators to produce a total of 45 tons of ice, in addition to the 80 tons
already authorized in ‘the City of Iloilo, tends to and will surely ruin the
business of the two existing operators contrary to the doctrine laid down in the
case of San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid, 53 Phil., 539, and (b) that the applicants
.Natividad Ariaga, Juan Salvador and Mariano Cacho have not yet made any
investment as a result of said decision and that the immediate implementation of
the provisions thereof might entail huge loses on the part of said operators and
would cause grave and irreparable injury to their rights as operators for which
reason petitioner asks that the execution of said decision be suspended upon
petitioner’s filing a bond in the amount that the court may deem just to fix to
answer for any damages that the applicants might suffer as a result of said
suspension.

And in passing on this petition for certiorari, this court
practically reaffirmed the unanimous decision of the Public Service Commission
dated March 28, 1950. This court found said decision justified after considering
the evidence presented by the parties and the findings of fact made thereon by
the Commission. The court even quoted with approval a substantial portion of the
decision containing thess findings of fact. And in connection with the huge
investment already made by the applicants, including petitioner herein Natividad
Ariaga, this Court said:

“Es justo que ellos sean castigados a la inaccion y que quedan
obligados a revender las maquinarias acaso a precio bajo. Estos capitalistas han
hecho las coropras en virtud de la decision dictada por la Comision de UtilMades
Publicas y porque este Tribunal, no encontrando razon suficiente, no impidio la
inmediata ejecucion de la sentencia, como solicltaba la recurrente. No es justo
denegar la solicitud de las tres solicitantes (hoy recurridos) solamente para
proteger el negocio de la recurrente que ya ha estado explotando la planta por
bastante tiempo y que no podia abastecer la cantidad de hielo que el publico de
Iloilo necesitaba. La pesca en alta mar, industria que antes de la guerra estaba
bajo el absolute control de los japoneses y ahora en manos filipinas, debe ser
propulsada en vez de castigada: es venero de riqueza nacional que debe ser
fomentada a toda costa, especialmen’e hoy que el pescado en conserva va
desapareciendo del mercado por imperativos del elevado impuesto de la
exportacion del dinero.”

It is interesting to note that respondent does not now dispute
the finding of the Commission to the effect that public necessity and
convenience demand that the applicants be allowed to install a 15-ton ice plant
each considering the increase of the population in the city and province of
Iloilo after the liberation of the Philippines. This increase was found
justified by statistics. On this point the three Commissioners are agreed. Where
the divergence arose is with regard to the place where the new ice plants should
be installed. Commissioner Ocampo maintains that they should be installed within
the City of Iloilo; Commissioners Prieto and Paredes, Jr. hold that they should
be installed somewhere within the Province of Iloilo. And this divergence came
to a head only after the filing of a motion for reconsideration. This divergence
gave rise to a confusion and brought about the present petition for review.

We are of the opinion that this modification cannot now be made
in the face of the circumstances obtaining in the cases before us. Here the
three applicants have come before the Public Service Commission to ask for a
permit to install an ice plant and cold storage each within the City of Iloilo
and at the hearing of their applications they submitted voluminous evidence to
establish the necessity of such installation. All the evidence they have
presented was all aimed at establishing and convincing the Commission that
public necessity and convenience warranted that the ice plant be installed in
said city. No effort has been made by the oppositors to show that any particular
town or municipality in the Province of Iloilo could offer enough demand to
warrant the operation of an ice plant of 15-ton capacity in order to make
worthwhile a huge investment in that place. Even in the motion for
reconsideration of oppositor Elpidio Javellana of April 25, 1950, which gave
rise to the amendatory orders, the place where the ice plants should be
established was not put at issue as said motion only sought to set aside the
unanimous decision of March 28, 1950, by alleging, as only ground, that there is
no shortage of ice in view of the present requirements in Iloilo and that if
there is need for additional services resulting from the existence of such
shortage, he has the preferential right to put up said additional services. That
the place of the establishment of the ice plant is something which was never
brought out in the pleadings or in the evidence can be further gleaned from the
very suggestion made by Commissioner Paredes, Jr. in his disputed order that the
applications filed by the petitioner and other applicants be amended in order
that they may specify therein the places where they may desire to establish
their ice plants. This situation is further reflected in the following portion
of the order of Commissioner Ocampo dated May 14, 1950:

“The ruling of my colleagues that applicants’ plants should be
installed in an undetermined place outside of the City of Iloilo finds no
support nor basis whatsoever in the evidence of record. It is a cardinal and
fundamental rule in Commission cases that the Commission must bare its decision
on the evidence presented. In default of evidence, the Commission can not issue
any certificate of public convenience, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly
ruled on this principle. Every bit of evidence presented in these cases refers
to the question of whether or not it is necessary to install and operate
applicants’ plants in the City of Iloilo and not elsewhere outside the city, so
that the ruling that these plants must be installed outside Iloilo City has no
foundation whatsoever in the evidence presented in these cases. The Commission
knew at the time it promulgated its unanimous decision of March 28, 1950,
authorizing the installation of applicants plants in the City of Iloilo of the
existence of two other ice plants therein. While it is true that the Commission
is empowered by law to modify its decision on any case after a hearing on a
motion for reconsideration, such power is not unlimited but is subject to the
fundamental rule that whatever modification is made must be based on the
evidence presented in the case. Upon these considerations, it results that the
ruling in the majority opinion to require applicants’ plants to be installed in
undetermined places outside the City of Iloilo is arbitrary and unjust to the
applicants.”

While the view entertained by Commissioners Prieto and Paredes,
Jr. is plausible, being in line with the decision of this court in the San
Miguel Brewery case (San Miguel Brewery vs. Espiritu, 60 Phil., 745), we hold
that the same does not find proper application here considering the nature of
the evidence presented. Moreover, the record shows that the petitioner has
already made huge investment by acquiring the necessary site for the ice plant
and the buildings and machineries to complete the factory, which investment was
made in line with the unanimous decision of the Commission dated March 23, 1950.
other words, the investment was made in good faith prompted merely by the desire
of the petitioner to be of immediate service to the needs of the public. To
modify now the decision of the Commission in the sense of requiring petitioner
to move her plant to any other place within the Province of Iloilo which is
uncertain and indefinite would be most unfair and unjust as it would be
tantamount to ignoring the big investment already made by petitioner. This would
be tantamount to a punishment which petitioner does not deserve. Under the
circumstances, this court finds no sufficient justification in law as well as in
fact for the modification wrought into the decision by Commissioners Gabriel P.
Prieto and Quintin Paredes, Jr.

Wherefore, the court hereby sets aside the orders appealed from
and maintains in toto the decision of the Public Service Commission dated March
28, 1950, with costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Jugo, and Labrador, JJ.,
concur.