Case Digest (G.R. No. 36900)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 36900)
Facts:
San Miguel Brewery v. Esteban C. Espiritu, G.R. Nos. 36900 and 37003, October 19, 1934, the Supreme Court En Banc, Villa‑Real, J., writing for the Court.On May 16, 1931, Esteban C. Espiritu applied to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to establish and operate a 10‑ton‑daily ice plant in the municipality of Caloocan, with authority to sell ice there and in neighboring municipalities (Malabon, San Juan del Monte, Navotas and Polo). San Miguel Brewery and Pedro Cruz filed oppositions on May 28, 1931. Hearings were conducted before Commissioner M. V. del Rosario, and the case was submitted for decision on September 28, 1931.
While the matter remained undecided, the Legislature on November 9, 1931 enacted Act No. 3844, amending section 2 of Act No. 3108 to provide that contested matters shall be heard and decided by the Commission in full or at least by two commissioners, but that any one commissioner may, by authority of the Commission, make the inquiries the Commission is empowered to undertake. On December 21, 1931 the Commission — through Commissioner del Rosario, with conformity of Associate Commissioners R. A. Cruz and A. R. Teodoro — denied Espiritu’s application, finding no showing that public necessity and convenience would be better served and expressing concern about ruinous competition to existing operators.
Espiritu filed a motion on December 28, 1931 limiting his proposed field of distribution to Caloocan only. On January 4, 1932 the Commission (two Associate Commissioners, Cruz and Teodoro) with Commissioner del Rosario dissenting, granted the motion for reconsideration and directed issuance of a certificate limited to Caloocan. The Commission’s majority relied on facts including (1) absence of an ice plant in Caloocan, (2) population growth there, (3) Espiritu’s assertion of sufficient local demand and his experience and capital, and (4) his waiver of service to neighboring towns.
Both San Miguel Brewery (G.R. No. 36900) and Pedro Cruz (G.R. No. 37003) appealed the Commission’s January 4, 1932 decision, assigning procedural error (that the two commissioners who had not taken part in the hearing improperly revoked the December 21 decision and issued the January 4 decision) and substantive error (that public convenience and necessity were not shown). The Supreme Court reviewed the Commission’s reversal and grant of the certificate and affirmed the Commission’s January 4, 1932 decision.
Issues:
- Did the Public Service Commission have jurisdiction and act validly in reconsidering and reversing its December 21, 1931 decision when the January 4, 1932 decision was rendered by two commissioners who had not taken part in the original hearing, in light of Act No. 3844 (amendment to Act No. 3108)?
- Was the Commission’s grant of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to Espiritu for an ice plant in Caloocan supported by sufficient evidence of public convenience and necessity, given existing certificated operators serving Caloocan from outside plants?
- Was the Commission’s denial of the oppositors’ motions for reconsideration erroneous?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)