Title
Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board
Case
G.R. No. 19857
Decision Date
Mar 2, 1923
A Philippine ice company, serving select customers under private contracts, was ruled not a public utility as it lacked obligation to serve the general public.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 19857)

Statement of the Issue

The principal issue addressed is whether the Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company constitutes a public utility as defined under §9 of Act No. 2694.

Statement of the Case

The case arose from an investigation initiated by Secretary Villanueva in November 1921 into the operations of ice plants in Iloilo. Based on his report, the Public Utility Commissioner issued an order in December 1921 directing the Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company to provide justification as to why it should not be regarded as a public utility subject to the requirements set forth in Acts No. 2307 and 2694. In response, John Bordman presented a special answer asserting that the company operated as a private enterprise. A hearing ensued, involving testimonies and evidence, leading to a decision by the Public Utility Commissioner affirming the company’s status as a public utility. This decision was later upheld by the Public Utility Board, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial review from the court.

Statement of the Facts

The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company, incorporated in 1908, has a capital stock of ₱60,000 and operates an ice manufacturing plant in Iloilo. Initially, competing ice plants operated in the area, but the petitioner became the sole producer after these competitors ceased their operations. The company produces approximately 3 tons of ice per day and has predominantly engaged in the sale of ice via written contracts, giving preference to select customers such as hospitals. The company’s operations do not aim to meet public demand comprehensively, and it has made efforts to limit its services to specific individuals, further evidenced by its practices requiring customers to waive future service rights.

Statement of the Law

The problem of defining a public utility stems from legislative texts. Section 14 of the original public utility law, Act No. 2307, did not include ice plants, a void remedied by Act No. 2694 in 1917, which expressly defined public utility to encompass ice and cold storage facilities intended for public use. The law articulates that public utilities include entities operating any service for public utilization and sets forth the regulatory jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission over such businesses.

Statement of the Authorities

Judicial precedents provide insights into defining public utility. Cases such as U.S. vs. Tan Piaco emphasize that a business must serve the public broadly and not selectively to be classified as a public utility. The criteria hinge on whether the service is accessible to the general populace, thus establishing a public character opposed to private enterprise. Furthermore, decisions from both the U.S. Supreme Court and California courts affirm the notion that true public use is marked by open service availability rather than selective agreements with specific individuals.

Statement of the Petitioner's Case and the Government's Case

The petitioner argued that its operations were limited to selected contracts, asserting that it had no obligation to serve all consumers or expand its facilities. It contended that all sales were conducted on an individual basis with waivers of future service, indicating an intention to remain a private entity rather than a public utility. Conversely, the government acknowledged the factual assertions yet attempted to draw distinctions based on broader interpretat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.