Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4821)
Background of the Case
- The case involves a petition for review regarding the installation of ice plants in Iloilo.
- Natividad Ariaga, the petitioner, sought a certificate of public convenience to operate a 30-ton ice plant in the City of Iloilo.
- The application faced opposition from Elpidio Javellana and La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., Inc., existing operators in the area.
- The Public Service Commission (PSC) initially granted the petitioners the right to operate within the City of Iloilo on March 28, 1950.
Procedural History
- Following the PSC's decision, Javellana filed a motion for reconsideration, which was initially put on hold due to a pending Supreme Court review by La Paz Ice Plant.
- After La Paz withdrew its appeal, Javellana's motion was reconsidered, leading to conflicting orders from PSC commissioners.
- The PSC ultimately modified its original decision, allowing the ice plants to be established anywhere in the Province of Iloilo, not just the City of Iloilo.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Ariaga contended that the modification was unjust and detrimental to her interests, particularly due to significant investments made based on the original PSC decision.
- She argued that the modification lacked evidentiary support and contradicted the necessity established for the ice plants in the City of Iloilo.
Supreme Court's Findings
- The Supreme Court noted that the PSC's original decision was based on substantial evidence demonstrating the need for ice plants in the City of Iloilo.
- The Court emphasized that the modification by Commissioners Prieto and Paredes lacked a factual basis and was arbitrary.
- The Court highlighted that the evidence presented during the hearings did not support the need for ice plants outside the City of Iloilo.
Investment Considerations
- The Court recognized the significant investments made by the applicants, including Ariaga, in anticipation of the PSC's original decision.
- It stated that requiring the applicants to relocate their plants would be unfair and could lead to financial losses, undermining the good faith investment...continue reading