SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU, RESPONDENT AND APPELLEE.

This case embraces two appeals taken, one
by the San Miguel Brewery (G. R. No. 36900), and the other by Pedro
Cruz (G. R. No. 37003), from the decision of the Public Service
Commission approving the application of Esteban C. Espiritu to
establish and operate an ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan.

In support of its appeal, the San Miguel Brewery assigns the
following alleged errors as committed by the Public Service Commission
in its said decision, to wit:

“1. The Public Service Commission, represented by
only two of its members who did not take part in the hearing of the
case, erred in ordering the issuance to the respondentappellee, Esteban
C. Espiritu, of a certificate of public convenience to install,
maintain and operate an ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan, in
the suburbs of the City of Manila, there being no sufficient evidence
before said commission to support said application.

“2. The
Public Service Commission, represented by only two of its members who
did not take part in the hearing of the case, erred in revoking the
decision of December 21, 1931, and in rendering that of January 4,
1932, on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to do both.

“3. The Public Service Commission erred in denying the motion for reconsideration dated January 13, 1932.”

In support of his appeal, Pedro Cruz, in turn, assigns the
following alleged errors as committed by the Public Service Commission
in its decision in question, to wit:

“1. That the Public Service Commission, represented
only by two of its members who did not take part in the hearing of the
case, erred in reconsidering the decision rendered by the Public
Service Commission in bane, dated December 21, 1931, denying the
application of Esteban C. Espiritu, respondent-appellee, and issuing in
its stead its order and decision of January 4, 1932, approving the
application of Esteban C. Espiritu and ordering the issuance in his
favor of a certificate of public convenience for the installation of an
ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan, Rizal, and the sale of its
ice within the limits of the said municipality.

“2. That the
Public Service Commission erred in holding in its order and decision of
January 4, 1932, that public convenience and necessity would be better
served by the installation of an ice plant in the municipality of
Caloocan, and by ordering the issuance of a certificate of public
convenience in favor of Esteban C. Espiritu for the establishment and
operation of an ice plant in Caloocan.

“3. That the Public
Service Commission erred in denying the motion for reconsideration of
the herein petitionerappellant, dated January 11, 1932.”

This case arose from an application filed by Esteban C. Espiritu
with the Public Service Commission on May 16, 1931, praying for the
issuance in his favor of a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to establish and operate an ice plant with a capacity of 10
tons daily, in the municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal, with
authority to sell its product not only in said municipality but also in
those of Malabon, San Juan del Monte and Navotas of the Province of
Rizal, and in that of Polo of the Province of Bulacan, at the rate of
P0.02 a kilo at the plant and P0.02 1/2 at domicile.

The petitioner-appellant San Miguel Brewery filed its opposition to
said application on May 28, 1931, and the petitioner Pedro Cruz filed
his on the same date.

After various hearings held before the Commissioner, M. V. del
Rosario, the case was submitted for decision on September 28, 1931.
While said case was pending decision, the Philippine Legislature, on
November 9, 1931, approved and promulgated Act No. 3844, amending
section 2 of Act No. 3108, otherwise known as the Public Service Act,
which reads as follows:

“SEC. 2. * * * All contested matters that may be
presented before the Commission shall be heard and decided upon by the
Commission in full or at least by two Commissioners, and before any
Commissioner is assigned to write the decision or any resolution which
affects in some way the right of the parties concerned, the matter
shall be voted upon by the members of the Commission who have taken
part in the direction of the case: Provided, however, That
any one of the Commissioners may, through authority of the Commission,
make all the inquiries which the Commission is empowered to undertake.”

* * * * * * *

On December 21, 1931, the
Public Service Commission, through the Commissioner, M. V. del Rosario,
and with the conformity of the Associate Commissioners, R. A. Cruz and
A. R. Teodoro, rendered a decision the dispositive part of which reads
as follows:

“In view of the foregoing, and it not having
been established that the public necessity and convenience will be
better served with the installation of an ice plant applied for by
Esteban C. Espiritu, and inasmuch as the granting of said application
might cause a competition which might become ruinous to the interests
of the rest of the operators who have made Caloocan a’ part of their
sphere of distribution, the .petition of Esteban C. Espiritu is hereby
denied in so far as it seeks the issuance in his favor of a certificate
of public convenience to install, maintain and operate an ice plant in
the municipality of Caloocan.

“This decision shall take effect immediately and shall become final thirty (30) days after notice thereof to the parties.”

On December 28, 1931, the respondent-appellee Esteban C. Espiritu filed
a motion wherein he limited his field of distribution to the
municipality of Caloocan and prayed that the former decision be
reconsidered by granting him a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to install, maintain and operate an ice plant in said
municipality.

On January 4, 1932, the two Associate Commissioners, R. A. Cruz and
A. R. Teodoro, with the Commissioner, M. V. del Rosario, dissenting,
granted the motion for reconsideration of the decision dated December
21, 1931, and rendered a decision directing the issuance of a
certificate of public convenience and necessity in favor of the
applicant Esteban C. Espiritu for the establishment and operation of an
ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan only.

In reconsidering its decision and rendering a new one, with the
Commissioner, M. V. del Rosario, dissenting, the majority of the
members of the Public Service Commission base its opinion on the
following facts:

“(1) The oppositor, San Miguel Brewery, has not
established an ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan, neither have
the oppositors Teodora Santos and Pedro Cruz established one therein.
Teodora Santos, by virtue of her certificate of public convenience has
been authorized to establish an ice plant in the municipality of
Meycauayan with the right to distribute in the municipalities of
Marilao, Bocaue, Bigaa, Sta. Maria, San Jose, Obando, and Polo, and
Pedro Cruz, by virtue of the certificate of public convenience issued
to him, was authorized to establish an ice plant in the municipality of
Malabon with the right to sell the manufactured ice in the
municipalities of Caloocan and Navotas.

“(2) According to
the 1918 census, the number of inhabitants in the municipality of
Caloocan was 19,551, which is now approximately 33,110, according to
the statistical division of the Philippine Health Service, yet, in
spite of this large number of inhabitants, said municipality has no ice
plant of its own.

“(3) In “his testimony, applicant Espiritu
claims that after studying the conditions obtaining in his locality
(Caloocan), he found that there is a sufficient market for ice, and the
establishment of the proposed ice plant will not cause a ruinous
competition but, on the contrary, with the facilities which he will
give the public in due time, the applicant will much better promote the
welfare of the inhabitants.

“(4) As one of the prime
necessities in ordinary and every-day life, ice has constant
application and use, in addition to being a daily food preservative,

“(5) The applicant, Esteban C. Espiritu, is an experienced businessman
and has sufficient capital to manage and administer the proposed ice
plant in the municipality of Caloocan, expressly waiving service to
neighboring towns (see his motion for reconsideration). Said
waiver has changed the fundamental aspects of the question raised at
the time this case was submitted for decision and when this Commission,
in its order dated December 21, 1931, paused to define jurisdictions
and enumerate the consequences of its decision which would grant to the
applicant the privilege of extending his sphere of activity to other
municipalities outside Caloocan.”

In the case of Limjoco vs. Public Service Commission and
Cabrera (G. R. No. 32831, not reported, which was decided on September
13, 1930), this court sitting in second division, stated as follows:

“In granting or denying a certificate, the public
convenience and necessity should be taken into consideration first and
above all. The mere fact that a holder of a certificate of public
convenience and necessity is authorized to supply and sell ice in a
locality does not prevent the authorization of another holder of a
certificate of public convenience and necessity to supply and sell ice
in the same locality when the latter is in a better position to do so
than the former, and when his service proves to be better and more
beneficial to the inhabitants of said locality, taking into
consideration the distance-between the municipality where the plant is
established and that in which the ice manufactured in said plant is to
be sold. This is not a case of a land transportation company with a
time-table, whose service may be increased or decreased according to
the needs of the public, but that of a company supplying ice
manufactured by it, whose efficiency to satisfy the needs of the buying
public depends upon its promptness and economy in so doing.”

In this case, it is an admitted fact that in the municipality of
Caloocan there is no ice plant and that the slant for the installation
of which the herein appellee Esteban C. Espiritu seeks authority and
certificate of public convenience and necessity, will be the first
therein. It is true that the appellants, San Miguel Brewery and Pedro
Cruz, supply said municipality with ice from their respective plants,
that of the former being established on General Solano Street of the
City of Manila and that of the latter in Malabon, Province of Rizal,
both of which places are some kilometers from Caloocan, but they have
no permanent ice depositories in the latter municipality, where those
in need thereof for domestic purposes as well as for urgent cases of
illness, may go at any time. They have only deliverytrucks which
distribute ice to their customers in said municipality at certain hours
of the day. It being of general knowledge, and therefore, pf judicial
knowledge, no evidence is necessary to show that an ice plant in the
locality is much more advantageous to the general public as to facility
in acquiring said article of commodity, not to say of domestic
necessity, without loss in weight, than a plant some kilometers from
said locality, which distributes ice to its customers by means of
delivery-trucks at certain hours of the day. Even in the case where an
outside manufacturer has an ice depository in the locality, this court
has found and held that it is always more advantageous to have an ice
plant in the same locality. (San Miguel Brewery vs. Calumpit Ice Plant, G. R. No. 31550, promulgated January 14, 1930, not reported; Cruz and Lapid vs. San Miguel Brewery [1933], 67 Phil, 1017; San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid, 53 Phil, 539.)

The fact that the Commissioner, M. V. del Rosario, heard the case
and took the evidence when the commission had not yet been reorganized
by virtue of Act No. 8844, amendatory to Act No. 3108, does not prevent
two commissioners who did not take part in the hearing of said case
from deciding: it after said subsequent Act had gone into effect,
inasmuch as said section 2 of said Act No. 3844 provides that any one
of the commissioners may, through authority of the commission, make all
the inquiries which the commission is empowered to undertake. Inasmuch
as the hearing and decision of a contested matter relating to public
service by a single commissioner was authorized by the former law, the
hearing conducted by the Commissioner, M. V, del Rosario, was valid,
and as the new law authorizes the commission to delegate the hearing of
a contested matter to a single commissioner, the hearing conducted
under the former law has the same effect as if it were authorized by
the commission under the new law. To hold otherwise would be to annul
all the matters heard by a single commissioner and undecided before the
new law went into effect, to the great detriment of the interests of
the parties litigant. Such, certainly, was not the intention of the
Legislature.

In view of the foregoing considerations,
this court is of the opinion and so holds: (1) That the fact that one
or several ice plants established in another municipality or
municipalities are authorized to sell ice in another municipality where
no ice plant exists, does not prevent the authorization to establish an
ice plant in the latter municipality when the public convenience and
necessity so demand; and (2) that the fact that a contested matter
relating to public service has been heard by a commissioner in
accordance with Act No. 3108, does not prevent the commission in full,
or at least two commissioners, from deciding upon it after the passage
of Act No. 3844 which requires that contested matters be heard and
decided upon by the commission in full or at least by two commissioners.

Wherefore, not finding any error in the appealed decision, it is affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avancenia, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Abad Santos, Hull, Vickers, Imperial, Butte, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

 

---

GODDARD, J.,

I dissent.

At the hearing before the Public Service Commission and after the
applicant Esteban C. Espiritu closed his case the attorneys of the
oppositors moved to dismiss the application upon several grounds, one
of which was that the applicant had not proved the necessity and
convenience for the granting of the certificate prayed for. This motion
should have been granted. I venture to say that a certificate of public
convenience and necessity has never been granted upon such flimsy and
worthless evidence as that presented by the petitioner in this case.
However, after the oppositors had presented their evidence it was so
apparent that there was absolutely no necessity for the establishment
of an ice plant in Caloocan that the Public Service Commission, in the
dispositive part of its first decision, dated December 21, 1931, said:

“En vista de todo lo expuesto, y no habiendbse
establecido que la necesidad y conveniencia publica estaran mejor
servidas con la instalacion de una planta de hielo solicitada por
Esteban C. Espiritu, y pudiendose causar, si se concediera lo pedido,
una competencia que podrfa degenerar en ruinosa a los intereses de
todos los demas operadores que han hecho de Caloocan parte de su esfera
de distribucion, por la presente, se deniega la peticion de Esteban C.
Espiritu en cuanto pide que se le expida un certificado de conveniencia
publica para instalar, mantener, y operar una fabrica en el Municipio
de Caloocan.” This decision was written by the Hon. M. V. del Rosario
and concurred in by the other two Commissioners Anastasio R. Teodoro
and R. A. Cruz.

Seven days later, December 28, 1931, Espiritu filed a motion of
reconsideration in which he amended his original application and prayed
that he be granted a certificate of public convenience for supplying
ice to the municipality of Caloocan only, excluding the municipalities
of Malabon, Navotas and San Juan del Monte of Rizal Province and Polo
of the Province of Bulacan. On January 4, 1932, with Commissioner Del
Rosario dissenting, the other commissioners revoked the first decision
and granted Espiritu a certificate of public convenience to establish,
maintain and operate an ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan only.

In its first decision the Public Service Commission said:

“Ahora bien: ¿estan debida y suncientemente
servidos los residentes y vecinos del Municipio de Caloocan (con el
hielo que le proporcionan la recurrente apelante y el Sr. Pedro Cruz,
de Malabon.)? La contestacion es afirmativa, y 1c estan,
indudablemente, no solamente por las grandes fabricas que tienen un
servicio ;des y los requerimientos de los residentes de Caloocan estan
ampliamente y suficientemente servidos por las plantas que existen en
los alrededores del pueblo de Caloocan, y no debe perderse de vista que
se sirve hielo a Caloocan, por la opositora San Miguel Brewery y por
Pedro Cruz, no por medio de agentes intermedios, sino que sirven hielo
a dicho Municipio de Caloocan como parte del negocio que tienen
establecido.

* * * * * * *

“La liberalidad con que esta Comision ha estado
concedfendo licencias para el establecimiento de f abricas de hielo
debe tener Ifmite, y el caso presente es uno en que la Comisidn debe
fijarse mucho antes de poderlo hacer, pues se llegaria al extremo y el
momento en que, algunas personas con un afan mas o menos sano, traten
de establecer bajo principios de liberalidad que se invocan, plantas de
hielo aun en los mismos barrios, lo cual nunca fuo la intencion de la
Comision.

“Debe concederse el establecimiento de estas
plantas alia donde las circunstancias y las cpndiciones lo exijan; alia
donde el pueblo y los habitantes y residentes deben tener y contar en
cualquier momento con un producto tan importante para la vida, como el
hielo, pero cuando, como en el presente caso, no nay ninguna
justificacion bastante y suficiente demostrativa de que aparte del
hielo que se lleva a Caloocan y se deja alii, se requiere otra planta
de hielo, en este caso es cuando esta Comision debe poner un limite
para evitar precisamente que log operadores de aquel territorio sufran
las consecuencias de una competencia ruinosa e injusta.”

The proofs of the applicant consisted principally in his own
testimony, certificates as to the number of inhabitants of the
municipalities of Caloocan, Navotas, Malabon, San Juan del Monte and
Polo, statistics presented by the San Miguel Brewery in another case
with reference to sales of ice made by that company in said
municipalities during the years 1927 to 1930 and Exhibit L. In regard
to this Exhibit L the applicant Espiritu testified:

“P.	¿Tiene Vd. una relaciton de consumidores de hielo que se han comprometido a comprar de Vd. caso de concederse el permiso que Vd. solicita para establecer una fabrica en el Municipio de Caloocan?

“Sr. SOBAL.	Me opongo a la pregunta a menos que esa relacion sea un contrato, porque no es sunciente una mera alegacion de que algunas personas se hayan comprometido a comprar hielo del solicitante.
“Sr. MONZON.	Quisieramos presentar esta prueba como parte de la declaracion del testigo que ha hecho una investigacion de este propuesto negocio y ha obtenido datos en apoyo de su solicitud.

“JUEZ.

Puede contestar

—

Veremos la pertinencia de las pruebas mas tarde.

“R.	Si, senor, tengo.

“P.

Demostrandole a Vd. este Exhibito L haga Vd. el favor de decir a la Comision que es.

—

R.

Es una lista o relacion de probables consumidores de hielo; estas personas son comerciantes que tienen tiendas y otras son individuos que se han comprometido a saearme hielo.

“P.

¿Ha tenido Vd. conversacion con los senores que aparecen en esta lista?

—

R.

Si, yo mismo he hablado a estas personas.” (Italics supplied.) (Pp. 7, 8, t. s. n.)

The following is the testimony of some of the witnesses whose names appear on this Exhibit L:

“JAMES A. WATSON (pp. 44 and 45, t. s. n.)

“JAMES A. WATSON, despues de haber prestado juramento en forma legal, declara que tiene 65 anos de edad, casado, manager de la Manila Golf Glub, residente en Galoocan, Rizal.

“Preguntas directas por el ABOGADO SOBRAL:

“Q.	During the course of this trial, the petitioner Esteban G. Espiritu has filed a list of names of persons who, according to him, had agreed to obtain so much ice from him if he is granted a permit to put up an ice factory in Caloocan. Among the persons mentioned in this list Exhibit L is the Manila Golf Club at Galoocan, with 200 kilos of ice per day. Have you ever promised Mr. Esteban C. Espiritu to take 200 kilos of ice per day?	—	A.	Never; I don’t know the man.
“Q.	Have you made that promise to anyone representing Mr. Esteban Espiritu?	—	A.	Never.
“Q.	Do you know the San Miguel Brewery?	—	A.	Yes.
“Q.	Did you obtain your ice from the San Miguel Brewery for the Manila Golf Club?	—	A.	Yes, sir.
“Q.	Have you any complaint in the delivery of ice by the San Miguel Brewery?	—	A.	No, I have no complaint; nor has any of the four hundred members of the club made any complaint for the last two -years:
Q.	Have you always been able to obtain ice from the San Miguel Brewery at any time that you have asked for it?	—	A.	Always got them punctual—we get from 300 to 500 kilos of ice during busy days at five or six in the morning and whenever we ask for ice, we get it.

“RAFAEL BERTOL (p. 48, t. s. n.)

“RAFAEL BERTOL, despues de haber prestado juramento en forma legal,
declara que tiene 57 anos de edad, casado, medico, y residente en
Caloocan, Rizal.

“Preguntas directas por el Abogado Sobral:

“P.

Dr. Bertol, en una lista presentada por el solicitante en este asunto Sr. Esteban G. Espiritu, marcada Exhibits L, aparecen su nombre de Yd. como uno de los que se han comprometido con el Sr. Espiritu a sacarle 25 kilos de hielo al dfa. ¿Ha hecho Vd. semejante compromiso con el Sr. Espiritu ?

—

R.

Nunca le he hablado, ni creo que le conozco.

“PABLO SAUCO (pp. 48 and 49, t. s. n.)

“PABLO SAUCO, despues de haber prestado juramento en forma legal,
declara que tiene 41 anos de edad, casado, empleado en la Manila
Railroad Co., residente en Caloocan, Rizal.

“Preguntas directas por el Abogado Sobral:

“P.

En una lista preparada y presentada por el solicitante marcada como Exhfbito L, el Sr. Esteban C. Espiritu dice que Yd. se ha comprometido a sacarle 25 kilos de hielo diariamente. iEs verdad que Yd. ha hecho ese compromiso con el Sr. Espiritu?

—

R.

No, senor.

“LUCIO C. SALAZAR (p. 50, t. s. n.)

“LUCIO C. SALAZAR, despues de haber prestado juramento en forma legal,
declara que tiene 44 anos de edad, casado, comerciante, residente en
Caloocan, Rizal.

“Preguntas directas por el ABOGADO SOBRAL:

“P.	En una lista preparada y presentada por el solicitante marcada como Exhfbito L, el Sr. Esteban C. Espiritu dice que Yd. se ha comprometido a sacarle 25 kilos de hielo diariamente. iEs verdad que Yd. ha hecho ese compromiso con el Sr. Espiritu?	—	R.	No, senor.
“P.	Sr. Salazar, en la lista Exhibito L presentada en este asunto, aparece su nombre como uno de los que se han comprometido con el Sr. Esteban C. Espiritu a sacarle 40 kilos de hielo diariamente. ¿Es verdad que Vd. ha hecho ese compromiso?	—	R.	No, senior.
“P.	¿ Vd. saca hielo de alguna parte?	—	R.	He sacado hielo de la San Miguel Brewery.
“P.	¿Hasta ahora saca Vd. hielo de la San Miguel Brewery?	—	R.	Si, senor.

“M. MUSIA (p. 51, t. s. n.)

“M. MUSIA, despues de haber prestado juramento en
forma legal, declara que tiene 35 anos de edad, casado, dueno de una
tienda de refrescos, residente en Safigandaan, Caloocan.

“PREGUNTAS directas por el ABOGADO SOBRAL:

“P.

En esta lista Exhibito L aparece su nombre de Vd. como uno de los que se han comprometido sacar del Sr. Esteban C. Espiritu’220 kilos de hielo diarios. ¿Es verdad que Vd. ha hecho tal compromiso?

—

R.

Esta equivocado eso.

“MARIANO REYES (p. 52, t. s. n.)

“MARIANO REYES, despues de haber prestado juramento
en forma legal, declara que tiene 31 anos de edad, casado, agente de la
Fabrica de San Miguel, residente en 185 Herbosa, Manila.

“Preguntas directas por el ABOGADO SOBRAL:

“P.	En una lista presentada por el Sr. Espiritu de Caloocan, Exhibito L, se dice que Vd. se ha comprometido sacarle 250 kilos de hielo diariamente. ¿Quo dice Vd. a eso?	—	R.	No, senor, no he hablado con el Sr. Espiritu nunca.
“P.	Vd. ha dicho que era agente de la San. Miguel de venta de hielo. ¿Donde lleva Vd. su hielo?	—	R.	En Manila y en San Juan.
“P.	Todos los dias?	—	R.	R. Si, senor.”

Furthermore in answer to letters from the San Miguel Brewery to
several people, residents of Caloocan, whose names also appear oh
Exhibit L, the following persons answered, Pablo de Guia of the Manila
Railroad Co., D. Aquino, municipal president of Caloocan, C. S.
Nadurata of the Manila Railroad Co., F. R. Icasiano of the Manila
Railroad Co. and the La Loma Cabaret, stating in substance that they
were surprised to hear that their names were on said exhibit arid that
they never promised to buy ice from Espiritu and that they intended to
continue buying ice from the San Miguel Brewery. These letters were
admitted without objection.

The name of Irineo Ortiz also appears on Exhibit L, and Donato C. Guzman testified as follows:

“P.	¿Ha hablado Vd. con el Sr. Irineo Ortiz (No. 32) que aparece en esta lista como comprometiendose a sacar 25 kilos de hielo al dia?	—	R.	No he encontrado tal residencia de tal Irineo Ortiz. Hace cinco anos que ha muerto el Sr. Ortiz por un accidente en Zamboanga.
“P.	¿Como sabe Vd. que ha muerto ese Sr. Ortiz?	—	R.	R. Pues el sabado pasado cuando Uegue a Caloocan en compania del Sr. Nadurata, fuimos a la casa del presidente, Sr. Dominador Aquino, y el Jefe de Policfa, Sr. Cordero, porque el Sr. Nadurata me habia informado que este Senor se ha muerto en Mindanao. Para estar seguro le pregrunte al presidente y al Jefe de Policia si era verdad, y me contestaron que realmente el Sr. Ortiz se habia muerto en Zamboanga.”

The above proves the worthlessness of Exhibit L and also the bad faith of Espiritu in preparing that exhibit.

In spite of the fact that the applicant Esteban C. Espiritu
testified that he could not maintain and operate his plant for the
purpose of supplying ice to the municipality of Caloocan alone, the
Public Service Commission granted him a certificate of public
convenience for that municipality only and the majority opinion of this
court affirms that decision.

Espiritu testified upon this point as follows:

“R.	Puedo, pero yo creo que no se consumiran esas diez toneladas.

“JUEZ.	¿por eso Vd. quiere extender su radio de accion hasta San Juan, Navotas, Malabon y Polo?	—	R.	Si, senor.
“JUEZ.	¿Por que realmente en Caloocan solamentp no puede mantenerse esa planta de hielo?	—	R.	No podria mantenerse en Caloocan si se ha de depender del consumo de hielo en Caloocan.

“Sr. Francisco (continuacion):

“P.	De entre esos municipios en donde Vd. solicita permiso para vender hielo, ¿hay algtin municipio en donde Vd. podria construir una planta de hielo y que podria mantenerse si se limita a ese municipio?	—	R.	No se puede mantenet una planta Umitdndose a un solo municipio.
“P.	¿Vd. solicita una planta de diez toneladas de capacidad diaria?	—	R.	Si senor.

* * * * * * *

“P.

¿Vd. no esta absolutamente seguro que vendera todas esas diez toneladas de hielo diariamente?

—

R.

Puedo asegurar que se consumiran todas esas diez toneladas si se me concediera permiso para vender en los municipios comprendidos en mi peticion.” (Italics supplied.) (Pp. 16-18, t. s. n.)

There is no justification whatsoever, in view of all the above, for
granting Espiritu a certificate of public convenience and the decision
of the Public Service Commission should be reversed.