THE MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for certiorari
filed by the Manila Electric Company against the Public Service
Commission, praying, for the reasons alleged therein, that judgment be
rendered declaring null and void said commission’s order contained in
its letter to the petitioner, dated July 24, 1934, whereby it directed
said petitioner to desist from enforcing the following measure or
regulation:

“A customer who dogs not have any outstanding
sufficient deposit with the company to guarantee his account for
electric service and who is disconnected for non-payment of bills,
shall not be reconnected unless the bills in arrears are paid and a
deposit to guarantee future accounts is made. The deposit shall be
equal to the amount of the approximate consumption for two months. It
shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent a year, and shall be
refunded at the end of one (1) year, if the customer has promptly paid
all electric bills rendered during that period.”

The Public Service Commission’s letter containing the order in question reads as follows:

“With reference to your notice of your intention to enforce, effective August 1, 1934, the following rule:

” ‘A customer who does not have any outstanding sufficient deposit with
the company to guarantee his account for electric service and who is
disconnected for non-payment of bills, shall not be reconnected unless
the bills in arrears are paid and a deposit to guarantee future
accounts is made. The deposit shall be equal to the amount of the
approximate consumption for two months. It shall bear interest at the
rate of 6 per cent a year, and shall be refunded at the end of one (1)
year, if the customer has promptly paid all electric bills rendered
during that period.’

“I beg to invite your attention to the following provision of section 16 (c) of Act 3108:

“No public service as herein defined shall adopt, maintain, or enforce
any regulation, practice, or measurement which shall be unjust,
unreasonable, unduly preferential, arbitrarily or unjustly
discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of law. * * * “

“You are therefore hereby directed not to adopt, maintain, or enforce
any regulation, practice, or measurement without having secured from
this commission authority to do so. The burden of proof shall be upon
you to show that such regulation, practice, or measurement is not
unjust, unreasonable, unduly preferential, arbitrarily or unjustly
discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of law.

“The amount of P15 should be remitted to this commission together with your application for such authority.”

The first question to be decided in this appeal is whether or not
there is a presumption that the measures or rules adopted by public
service companies are unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary.

Subsection (c) of section 16 of Act No. 3108, otherwise
known as the Public Service Law, on which the order in question is
based, reads as follows:

“SEC. 16. No public utility as herein defined shall:

* * * * * * *

“(c) Adopt, maintain, or enforce any
regulation, practice, or measurement which shall be unjust,
unreasonable, unduly preferential, arbitrarily or unjustly
discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of law, nor shall any public
utility as herein defined provide or maintain any service that is
unsafe, improper, or inadequate, or withhold or refuse any service
which can reasonably be demanded and furnished when ordered by said
Commission.”

Nothing in the above legal provision or in any other provision of
the same Act establishes or discloses the presumption that the measures
or regulations adopted by public service companies are unjust,
unreasonable and arbitrary.

Section 334, No. 31, of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the
disputable presumption that “the law has been obeyed”. If compliance
with the law is presumed, it should be presumed that the petitioner
Manila Electric Company has complied with the prohibition contained in
section 16, subsection (c), of Act No. 3108, not to adopt any
unjust unreasonable and arbitrary measure or regulation, and that the
measure or regulation which was adopted by it and of which it gave
notice to the Public Service Commission, is just and reasonable.
Inasmuch as this presumption exists in favor of the petitioner, the
burden of proof rests with the person claiming that said measure or
regulation is unjust, unreasonable or arbitrary, to show that his
allegation is true.

Therefore, in requiring the petitioner Manila Electric Company to
show that the measure or regulation which it attempts to enforce is
just and reasonable, the Public Service Commission violates one of the
rules of procedural law.

The second question to be decided is whether or not the Public
Service Commission is authorized to require the petitioner Manila
Electric Company to submit the measure or regulation under
consideration to it for approval before enforcing the same, and to pay
the corresponding registration fees.

Section 13 of Act No. 3108 places the general supervision and
regulation of all public utilities in the hands of the Public Service
Commission, and section 24, subsection (h), of the same Act
authorizes it to investigate any complaint that a certain measure or
regulation is unjust or unreasonable and to charge the expenses for
such investigation to the public utility at fault, but nothing in said
Act requires a public utility to submit to the Public Service
Commission for approval any measure or regulation of the nature and
character of the one under consideration, before enforcing it. In all
cases where the Legislature has required the previous approval of the
Public Service Commission for the validity of any act of a public
utility affecting its certificate of public convenience, it has so
expressly stated, as it has done in subsection (h) of section
16 of Act No, 3108, relative to the sale, transfer, mortgage and lease
of the properly, franchises and privilege of public utilities. It is a
rule of statutory construction that what is not expressly or impliedly
prohibited by law may be done, except when the act is contrary to
morals, customs and public order. Inasmuch as the law does not require
that a measure or regulation, such as the one under consideration, be
submitted to the Public Service Commission prior to its enforcement,
neither is the public service company desiring to adopt it obliged to
do so, nor is the Public Service Commission authorized to require that
it be done. There is no doubt but that inasmuch as the Public Service
Commission has authority and jurisdiction to supervise and regulate all
public utilities, public service companies are bound to give notice to
said commission of whatever measure or regulation affecting the public
which they may desire to adopt, and said commission is authorized to
demand it in order to be able to comply with its duty of general
supervision and regulation.

In view of the foregoing considerations, this court is of the
opinion and so holds: (1) That public service companies holding
certificates of public convenience are not required to prove that the
measures or regulations adopted by them, for the validity of which the
law requires no approval by the Public Service Commission, are just and
reasonable, unless they are objected to as unjust and unreasonable; and
(2) that neither are public service companies obliged, nor is the
Public Service Commission authorized to require them, to submit for
approval any measure or regulation for the validity of which the law
requires no such approval.

Wherefore, the Public Service Commission’s order contained in its
letter dated July 24, 1934, is declared null and void and without
effect, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Malcolm, Imperial, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.