G.R. No. L-12446 - Silva vs. Cabrera

Eliseo Silva, operator of a 5-ton ice plant in Lipa City, filed an opposition against Belen Cabrera’s application.
Belen Cabrera applied for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate an ice plant initially for 15 tons covering several municipalities in Batangas, later reducing her claim to a 10-ton plant by excluding certain municipalities.

Cabrera’s application was initially filed on June 1, 1949, covering municipalities including Sto. Tomas, Tanauan, Cuenca, Rosario, Alitagtag, San Juan de Bolbok, and Ibaan.
Oppositions were filed by Silva, Antonio Zaragosa, and the team of Leoncio S. Opulencia and Leonor Lat based on overlapping territories and concerns about excessive competition.
On July 14, 1949, Cabrera dropped San Juan de Bolbok and Rosario from her application, leading to Zaragosa’s withdrawal of his opposition.
Evidence was presented before the Public Service Commission by both Cabrera and the remaining opposers (Silva and the Opulencia-Lat team) through the representation of Atty. Antonio Aspillera, delegated by Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo.
On January 7, 1950, a decision was rendered authorizing Cabrera to operate a 10-ton ice plant in Lipa City.

Silva appealed the decision, which was annulled on March 19, 1951 by the Supreme Court in case G.R. No. L-3629, ordering a rehearing before the Commission or its delegated representative.
Despite the annulment, Cabrera had already installed and commenced operations of the 10-ton plant on March 15, 1950.
On April 11, 1951, Cabrera applied for a provisional permit to continue operations amid Silva’s objections.
At the subsequent hearing on May 31, 1951, Commissioner Ocampo allowed Cabrera to re-submit evidence previously introduced, and on July 26, 1951, granted a provisional permit subject to potential cancellation or revocation pending a final decision.
Silva later filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-5162) seeking another rehearing and annulment of the provisional permit order but was denied, leading to a trial de novo where both parties presented further evidence.

A trial de novo was conducted where evidence was again presented by both parties regarding the need for additional ice production.
Cabrera excluded further municipalities (Tanauan and Sto. Tomas) from her application, which was in line with the opposition of Opulencia and Lat.
On September 20, 1956, the Commission rendered a decision granting Cabrera a certificate of public convenience for a 10-ton ice plant in Lipa, with authorized sales in Lipa, Cuenca, Alitagtag, and Ibaan for 15 years from January 7, 1950.

Silva filed a motion for reconsideration on or about October 26, 1956, leading the Commission on June 5, 1957, to deny a new trial while modifying its September 20, 1956 decision by reducing the authorized production capacity in Lipa to 5 tons daily.
Silva’s third appeal was based on the contention that the Commission’s evaluation of the evidence was contrary to the weightier evidence he had presented, contesting the credibility and necessity of permitting Cabrera’s expanded operation.
Silva argued that the evidence adduced by Cabrera was insufficient to meet the public demand and that his own evidence, including the newly discovered facts, should have been given greater weight to protect his business interests from ruinous competition.

Prior to the conflict over Cabrera’s application, Silva had attempted to increase his own plant’s capacity on two separate occasions (first in 1947 for a 10-ton capacity and later in 1949 for a 15-ton capacity).
Silva’s earlier applications were based on similar grounds of increased public demand due to economic and population growth in the region, emphasizing the insufficiency of existing supply.

Whether the Public Service Commission committed an abuse of discretion in granting and subsequently modifying the certificate of public convenience in favor of Cabrera despite Silva’s opposition and evidence of adequate existing supply.

The pivotal question revolves around the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence establishing the need for an additional or expanded ice plant in Lipa City and surrounding municipalities.
Whether the modifications made (from 10-ton to 5-ton capacity) appropriately reflect the actual demand for ice production as supported by the evidence.

Whether the admission of re-submitted evidence before the trial de novo, despite prior Supreme Court instructions limiting delegation under the Public Service Act, was proper and did not prejudice Silva’s rights.

The decision addresses whether the evidence re-admitted during the provisional permit proceedings should have been excluded in adherence to the Supreme Court’s earlier decision.

The overarching issue of balancing public convenience and interests against the potential ruinous effects on Silva’s established business, given conflicting testimonies on the real demand for ice.