JESUS T. PINEDA, PETITIONER, VS. MOISES G. CARANDANG, RESPONDENT.

These are separate petitions filed by petitioner Jesus T. Pineda for
the review of a decision rendered by the Public Service Commission in
Cases Nos. 106152 and 106673.

The records disclose that on April 10, 1957, the now respondent
Moises G. Carandang filed with the said Commission an application for a
certificate of public convenience to install and operate an ice plant
in the municipality of Mamburao, province of Occidental Mindoro with a
productive. capacity of 5 tons of ice daily. The territory where he
proposes to sell the ice he manufactures includes the said municipality
of Mamburao as well as those of Abra de Ilog, Paluan, Sta. Cruz and
Sablayan of the same province. (Case No. 106152). On May 10, 1957,
herein petitioner Jesus T. Pineda filed his own application seeking
authority to install and operate a similar plant also in the
municipality of Mamburao capable of. producing 8 tons of ice daily arid
to sell the ice in the same municipalities proposed to be served by
Carandang except Sablayan. (Case No. 106673.) Each applicant opposed
the application of the other, claiming that he has a better right to a
certificate and that he is better qualified to put up the proposed
service. Maximo Anabo, an operator of an ice plant of one-ton capacity
located in Abra de Ilog, one of the municipalities where both
applicants propose to sell their ice, also opposed the applications. He
withdrew his opposition, however, during the joint hearing of the
applications when both applicants agreed to exclude the town of Abra de
Ilog from among those they propose to serve.

From the evidence presented at the joint hearing, the Commission
found that there is sufficient need for ice service in the territory
covered by the two applications to warrant the authorization of another
ice plant in the municipality of Mamburao, the one-ton of ice produced
by the Abra de Ilog plant being inadequate to meet such need. The need
or demand for ice, however, according to the Commission, does not
justify the authorization of an ice plant with a productive capacity of
more than 5 tons. The Commission, likewise, found both applicants
identically qualified and financially capable of operating the ice
plant which each one proposes. But considering that Moises G. Carandang
was the first applicant, the Commission in its decision dated September
30, 1957 denied Jesus T. Pineda’s application and approved that of the
former, issuing to said Moises G. Carandang a certificate of public
convenience to operate a 5-ton ice plant in Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro with authority to sell the ice it manufactures in that locality
as well as in the municipalities of Paluan, Sta. Cruz and Sablayan of
the same province.

In seeking a review of the decision below, counsel for petitioner
contends that the Commission erred in giving undue importance to
priority of application and in finding that a 5-ton ice plant would
satisfy the need for ice service in Mamburao and the neighboring towns
covered by the applications. It is claimed that, as between the two
applicants, petitioner Jesus T. Pineda is in a position to render
better service and that an 8-ton ice plant—and not one of only 5-ton
capacity—will best serve the public interest and welfare in the
territory proposed to be served. The Commission, however, as already
stated, found that both applicants, herein petitioner and respondent,
are identically qualified and financially able to operate and maintain
the public service utility applied for. From an examination of the
records, we find this finding to be amply supported by the evidence. We
may add that the herein respondent, whose application was granted, is a
civil engineer, with experience in the installation of an ice plant, so
that from the point of view at least of technical know-how, he is in a
better standing than herein petitioner Jesus T. Pineda. As to the
authorization of only a 5-ton ice plant in Mamburao, we also find this
to be fully justified and supported by the evidence, and consequently,
like the Commission’s finding regarding the qualification and financial
ability of both applicants, the same cannot now be disturbed. In
reviewing a decision of the Public Service Commission, this Court is
not required to examine the proof de novo and determine for
itself whether or not the preponderance of evidence really justifies
that decision. Our only function is to determine whether or not there
is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might
reasonably be based. 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. (See Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court,
Vol. II, 1957 ed, p. 678.)

In the circumstances, we hold that the Public Service Commission
committed no error in considering priority of application when it
awarded to herein respondent the certificate of public convenience to
operate a 5-ton ice plant. The rule, of course, where there are various
applicants for a public utility over the same territory, is that
priority of application, while an element to be considered, does not
necessarily control the granting of a certificate of public
convenience. The question to be considered in such cases is, which
applicant can render the best service, considering the conditions and
qualifications of the applicants to furnish the same. (De los Santos vs.
Pasay Transportation Co., 54 Phil., S57.) But where other conditions
are equal—as in this proceedings—priority in the filing of the
applications for a certificate of public convenience becomes an
important factor in the granting or refusal of a certificate. (Batangas
Transportation Co., vs. Eliseo Silva vs. Orlanes and Banaag Transportation Co., 55 Phil., 745, cited in the recent cases of Benitez vs. Santos; Lopez vs. Santos, supra, p. 167.

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

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.