G.R. No. 19857 - Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board

The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company was organized in 1908 under Philippine law with a capital stock of P60,000.
Since its organization, it has maintained and operated an ice production plant primarily in the City of Iloilo, with additional operations in the Provinces of Negros, Capiz, and Antique, including dealings with boats calling at the Iloilo port.

The company produces approximately 3 tons of ice per day.
Sales were documented for January 1922 totaling 83,837 kilos of ice, divided among:

Although new machinery was installed, this was exclusively for replacement purposes and did not increase production capacity.

The business is predominantly conducted with selected customers, including hospitals, physicians, and the sick, as evidenced by:

Written contracts that clearly state there is no obligation for future service beyond the current transaction.
Coupon books and cash sale forms indicating that no ongoing or public service is implied.

Notice in the company store explicitly states that ice is not sold to the general public but only through private contracts.
The cessation of storage facilities in 1918 and their reinstatement in 1920 with contractual limitations underscore the company’s intent to operate privately.

Secretary Francisco Villanueva, Jr. of the Public Utility Commission initiated an investigation into ice plants in Iloilo in November 1921.
The Public Utility Commissioner, based on Villanueva’s report and subsequent hearing testimonies (including that of John Bordman, the managing director and treasurer), issued an order on December 19, 1921, requiring the company to show cause why it should not be treated as a public utility under Act No. 2307 as amended by Act No. 2694.
The company responded through a special answer denying its status as a public utility by emphasizing its operation as a private enterprise with selective contracting.

There is a minor point of contention regarding the alleged sale of ice to the public and advertising practices as reported by Secretary Villanueva.
The managing director, however, maintained that public advertising was only breached on one occasion, reinforcing the company’s private character.

Whether the term “public utility” under section 9 of Act No. 2694 includes ice plants, refrigeration, and cold storage systems.
Whether the selective mode of operation and private contractual arrangements exempt the company from being classified as a public utility.

Whether the company’s practice of selling ice under private contracts (thereby limiting sales and excluding general public access) meets the statutory requirement of “public use.”
The extent to which previous judicial authorities and precedents, both locally and from the United States, are applicable in defining “public utility” for the purpose of regulation by the Public Utility Commission.

Whether the intervention by the Public Utility Commissioner represents a just exercise of regulatory power without infringing upon the due process rights of the company.
Whether imposing the obligations destined to public utilities on a business organized and operated as a private enterprise amounts to an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation.