G.R. No. L-3629 - Silva vs. Cabrera

Belen Cabrera filed an application with the Public Service Commission (PSC) seeking a certificate of public convenience to install, maintain, and operate an ice plant in Lipa City with a 15-ton daily productive capacity.
The proposed plant was intended to supply ice to several municipalities in Batangas province and to Lipa City.

Eliseo Silva and Opulencia & Lat, who held certificates for operating 5-ton ice plants, objected to Cabrera’s application.
The oppositors argued that their services were adequate to meet public demand and that an additional plant was not justified by public convenience.

Instead of conducting a hearing in banca (the full Commission acting together), Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo, by order dated July 14, 1949, delegated the duty of taking the testimony of witnesses to Attorney Antonio H. Aspillera, the Chief of the Legal Division.
Under section 32 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (the Public Service Act), Attorney Aspillera conducted hearings, received both oral and documentary evidence, and produced a 227-page transcript of stenographic notes.

Based on the evidence taken, the Commission ruled that public interest and convenience would be best served by authorizing the operation of a 10-ton ice plant (reduced capacity from the originally proposed 15-ton plant).
The Commission overruled the oppositions of both Eliseo Silva and Opulencia & Lat and granted Belen Cabrera the certificate of public convenience, subject to specified conditions.

Silva, one of the oppositors, filed a petition for review challenging two specific errors:

Error I: That delegation of the hearing to Attorney Aspillera was illegal under section 3 of the Public Service Act, as contested cases should be heard exclusively by a Commissioner or by the Commission in banca.
Error II: That the decision granting the certificate was not supported by sufficient evidence.

The Supreme Court addressed primarily the first error regarding the improper delegation of the hearing.

Whether the delegation made by the Public Service Commission to Attorney Aspillera to take testimonies and conduct the hearing in a contested case violated the requirements set forth in section 3 of the Public Service Act as amended by Republic Act No. 178.
Whether the role assumed by Attorney Aspillera, which went beyond taking a mere deposition to effectively conducting a trial-like hearing, was authorized under the statutory provisions, particularly in light of the distinction between sections 3 and 32 of the Public Service Act.