RUBEN L. VALERO AND ESTRELLA L. DE VALERO, PETITIONERS, VS. TERESITA L. PARPANA AND RAMON PAPA, JR., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for the review of a decision rendered by the Public
Service Commission in Cases Nos. 113106 and 113956.

The records show that on February 12, 1958, the herein respondents Teresita
L. Parpana and Ramon Papa, Jr., filed with the said Commission an application
for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate an ice plant in
the municipality of Tagudin, province of Ilocos Sur, with a productive capacity
of 10 tons of ice daily, proposing to sell the ice they manufacture in said
municipality of Tagudin and in the towns of Sevilla, Sta. Cruz, Sta. Lucia,
Candon, Santiago and San Esteban, of the same province, as well as in the towns
of Balaoan, Bangar, Sudipen, Luna and Bacnotan of the province of La Union.
(Case No. 113106.) The application was opposed by Ruben L.» Valero and his wife
Estrella; L. de Valero, herein petitioners, who alleged that they are; the
established operators with ice plants in San Fernando, La Union, and Candon,
Ilocos Sur; that they are authorized to sell ice in all the towns which
applicants Parpana and Papa propose to serve with’ the plant they seek to
install in Tagudin; and that, consequently, they (the Valero spouses) have a
better right to a certificate of public convenience to operate a new ice plant
in Tagudin. A month later, or on March 12, 1958, petitioners filed their own
application for a certificate to install and operate a 3.6-ton ice plant in the
same municipality of Tagudin with authority to sell the produce in said
municipality as well as in San Fernando, San Juan, Bacnotan, Luna and Bangar,
province of La Union, and in the towns of Sta. Cruz, Sta. Lucia and Candon, of
Ilocos Sur. (Case No. 113956.)

Respondents’ application, upon their motion, was heard before the Justice of
the Peace Court of Tagudin, while that of petitioners was heard before the
Commission in Manila. Before petitioner’s application could be decided, however,
respondents filed a petition asking that it be decided jointly with their own
application, which petition was granted by the Commission.

From the evidence presented, the Commission found that there is sufficient
need for ice service in the towns covered by the two applications to warrant the
authorization of another ice plant in the municipality of Tagudin. Indeed, the
need could hardly be disputed since both applicants have applied for such
service. Excluding from those proposed to be served some of the towns which are
very far from the site of the plant, the Commission authorized the establishment
of an ice plant capable of producing 5 tons of ice daily. And finding that
petitioners Valero spouses have not increased for the last 11 years the tonnage
capacity of their two ice plants so as to meet the increased demand of ice in
the territory they are authorized to serve, the Commission in its decision dated
November 3, 1958 denied their application and approved that of Parpana and Papa,
Jr., herein respondents, for a 5-ton plant in Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, with right to
sell the ice they manufacture in said municipality of Tagudin, as well as in
Sevilla, Sta. Cruz and Sta. Lucia of Ilocos Sur and in the towns of Bangar,
Sudipen, Luna and Bacnotan of the province of La Union.

In seeking a review of the decision below, counsel for petitioners contends
that the Commission erred in holding that petitioners have failed to meet the
increased demand of ice in the territory covered by their franchises. On this
point the Commission made the following findings:

“* * * Since 1947 or for 11 years up to now, applicants Valeros have been
satisfied to operate their two plants with a total capacity of 7 tons daily to
serve the ice requirements of 17 municipalities of La Union and Ilocos Sur.
Among these municipalities is San Fernando, the capital of La Union. The
evidence discloses that just the six towns of Sta. Cruz, Bangar, Luna, San
Esteban, Tagudin and Santiago have at present a total population of 94,0001 San
Fernando, Candon, and Narvacan are first class towns with big populations and as
it has shown that with the years these towns as well as the others have
continued to grow and there are in most of them hospitals, hotels, restaurants,
refreshment parlors and other business establishments which need ice everyday.
As operators of the San Fernando and Candon Plants, the Valeros knew or should
have known that their 7-ton production which probably was adequate 11 years ago
cannot now and during the last few years meet satisfactorily the ice demands of
the public in the towns which they are called upon to serve and yet it does not
appear that the Valeros at any time sought to increase the production of their
plants so as to meet these increasing demands except when they filed their
application for a plant in Tagudin one month after the application of Parpana
and Papa was filed. There seems to he merit in the contention of applicants
Parpana and Papa that the Valeros did not make any effort to bring about an
increase in their service until somebody else sought to put up an ice plant
within their territory. * * *”

From an examination of the records, we find the above findings to be amply
supported by the evidence and consequently cannot now be disturbed. In reviewing
a decision of the Public Service Commission this Court “will not substitute its
discretion for that of the Commission on questions of fact and will not
interfere in the latter’s decision unless it clearly appears that there is no
evidence to support it.” (Santiago Ice Plant and Co. vs. Lahoz, 87
Phil., 221; 47 Off. Gaz. [12] 403; Pineda vs. Carandang, 107 Phil.,
369; 58 Off. Gaz., [32] 5427.)

It is alleged that on August 27, 1957 petitioners actually applied for the
operation of a 2-ton capacity ice plant in Balaoan, La Union, which application
is still pending. It would appear, however, that they filed said application
only after one Victorio B. Flores had the month before filed an application to
install and operate an ice plant in said municipality of Balaoan, which was also
opposed by petitioners. (See Cases Nos. 10825 and 109029.) This was exactly what
happened in Case No. 113106 concerning respondents’ application now under
consideration. Apparently, the subsequent filing by petitioners of an
application of their own was a tactical move to secure for themselves, as
established operators, preference in the grant of authority for additional
service, should the Commission decide after hearing that there is need for such
additional service. Such tactical move, however, cannot hide the fact, as found
by the Commission, that over a period of many years, petitioners failed to take
steps to increase their service and facilities so as to be able to cope with the
increasing demands of the public. For this reason, the Commission correctly held
that petitioners cannot claim preferential right as an old operator.

“Moreover, even assuming for a moment that petitioner were an old operator on
the line in question, nevertheless he has not applied for an increase in his
service but allowed another to do so; and according to a line of decisions, it
has been ruled that the granting of preference to an old operator applies only
when said old operator has made an offer to meet the increase in traffic and not
when another operator even a new one, like respondent * * *, has made the offer
to serve the new line or increased the service on said line.” (Manila Yellow
Taxicab Co., Inc. vs. Castelo, 108 Phil., 394; 59 Off. Gaz., 694; see
also cases cited therein.)

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

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L.,
Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.

Decision affirmed.