G.R. No. L-5162 - JANUARY 1952 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-5162January 31, 1952 Eliseo Silva vs. Feliciano Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-4513January 31, 1952 Hermogenes Palomares, et al. vs. Agripino Jimenez, et al. G.R. No. L-4299January 31, 1952 Roberto Laperal, Jr., et al. vs. Ramon Katigbak, et al. G.R. No. L-4297January 31, 1952 Sotera G. Salvador vs. Victorio E. Reyes G.R. No. L-4294January 3, 1952 Alipio N. Casilan, et al. vs. Raymundo Tomassi, et al. G.R. No. L-4217January 31, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Egido G.R. No. L-4206January 31, 1952 Casiano de la Cruz, et al. vs. Jacobo Capulungan, et al. G.R. No. L-4170January 31, 1952 Intestate of Agustin Montilla, Sr., et al. vs. Agustin B. Montilla, Jr. G.R. No. L-4090January 31, 1952 Intestate Estate Honofre Leyson. Victorio L. Rodriguez vs. Pablo M. Silva G.R. No. L-4089January 31, 1952 Paterno Japitana vs. Manuel V. Hechanova G.R. No. L-3869January 31, 1952 S. Davis Winship vs. Philippine Trust Co. G.R. No. L-3686January 31, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Auspicio Romualdo G.R. No. L-4380January 30, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. Merenio, et al. G.R. No. L-4247January 30, 1952 Silverio Salva vs. Perfecto R. Palacio, et al. G.R. No. L-4487January 29, 1952 Enrique Layda vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-4227January 28, 1952 Jose Barrameda, et al. vs. Paulino Barbara, et al. G.R. No. L-3783January 28, 1952 Rufino Dimson vs. Rural Progress Administration G.R. No. L-3739January 28, 1952 Macondray and Co., Inc. vs. M. Sarmiento G.R. No. L-3872January 24, 1952 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ma Su G.R. No. L-4228January 23, 1952 Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Marcos Pimentel G.R. No. L-4075January 23, 1952 Conchita Martinez, et al. vs. Saturnina Martinez, et al. G.R. No. L-4007January 23, 1952 Philippine Oil Development Co., Inc. vs. Adelmo Go G.R. No. L-3825January 23, 1952 Apolinar E. Velasco vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-3788January 22, 1952 Marciano Principe vs. Antonio Eria G.R. No. L-4260January 21, 1952 People of the Philippines vs. Macario Bautro G.R. No. L-3222January 21, 1952 Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Collection of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-2125January 12, 1952 Le Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Patricio Cabellon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Eliseo Silva vs. Feliciano Ocampo, et al. Hermogenes Palomares, et al. vs. Agripino Jimenez, et al. Roberto Laperal, Jr., et al. vs. Ramon Katigbak, et al. Sotera G. Salvador vs. Victorio E. Reyes Alipio N. Casilan, et al. vs. Raymundo Tomassi, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Egido Casiano de la Cruz, et al. vs. Jacobo Capulungan, et al. Intestate of Agustin Montilla, Sr., et al. vs. Agustin B. Montilla, Jr. Intestate Estate Honofre Leyson. Victorio L. Rodriguez vs. Pablo M. Silva Paterno Japitana vs. Manuel V. Hechanova S. Davis Winship vs. Philippine Trust Co. People of the Philippines vs. Auspicio Romualdo People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio A. Merenio, et al. Silverio Salva vs. Perfecto R. Palacio, et al. Enrique Layda vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Jose Barrameda, et al. vs. Paulino Barbara, et al. Rufino Dimson vs. Rural Progress Administration Macondray and Co., Inc. vs. M. Sarmiento El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Ma Su Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Marcos Pimentel Conchita Martinez, et al. vs. Saturnina Martinez, et al. Philippine Oil Development Co., Inc. vs. Adelmo Go Apolinar E. Velasco vs. Court of Appeals Marciano Principe vs. Antonio Eria People of the Philippines vs. Macario Bautro Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Collection of Internal Revenue Le Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Patricio Cabellon The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-5162             January 31, 1952

ELISEO SILVA,petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE FELICIANO OCAMPO, GABRIEL P. PRIETO and QUINTIN PAREDES, JR., in their capacities as Commissioners of the Public Service Commission and BELEN CABRERA,respondents.

Rivera, Castano, Medina and Ampil for petitioner.
A.R. Aspillera for respondents Hons. Feliciano Ocampo, Gabriel P. Prieto and Quintin Paredes, Jr. Evaristo R. Sandoval for respondent Belen Cabrera.

BAUTISTA ANGELO,J.:

This is a petition forcertiorariwherein it is prayed that, pending hearing, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the respondent Belen Cabrera from operating her ice plant and that, after hearing, the order granting said respondent a provisional permit to operate her ice plant be declared null and void.

Belen Cabrera filed in the Public Service Commission an application for a certificate of public convenience to install, maintain and operate in the City of Lipa an ice plant with a 10-ton daily productive capacity and to sell the produce of said plant in said city as well as in several municipalities of the province of Batangas. Eliseo Silva opposed the application on the ground that his ice plant was adequate to meet the needs of the public and that public convenience did not require the operation of another ice plant. Commissioner Feliciano Ocampo commissioned Attorney Antonio H. Aspillera, chief of the legal division, to receive the evidence. Based on the evidence received by Aspillera, the Commission granted the application. On appeal, however, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings had before Attorney Aspillera were null and void being in violation of section 3 of the Public Service Act, as amended, and set aside the decision of the Commission and ordered that the case returned for re-hearing.

At the re-hearing before Commissioner Ocampo, counsel for the application offered to re-submit all the evidence presented by her at the hearing before Attorney Aspillera. Counsel for oppositor objected to the re-submission contending that said evidence can only be re-submitted if both parties agree to do so. Commissioner Ocampo ruled that the evidence could be re-submitted subject only to a revision by the Commissioner of the rulings made by Attorney Aspillera, and Commissioner Ocampo in fact revised said rulings and found them to be correct. In the opinion of Commissioner Ocampo, the applicant has the right either to re-submit her former evidence or to present evidencede novoand that it is not intended by the decision of this Court to curtail her right to choose between these two alternatives. On the basis of this evidence, Commissioner Ocampo granted to the applicant a provisional permit subject to the condition that it may be cancelled or revoked at any time and without prejudice to whatever final decision may be rendered in the case. The motion for reconsideration of oppositor having been denied, he filed this petition forcertiorari.

The dispositive part of the decision invoked by petitioner in opposing the re-submission by the applicant of her evidence says in part as follows:

Petitioner contends that Commissioner Ocampo acted in a manner contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court when he allowed the re-submission of the evidence of the applicant, instead of requiring her to present her evidencede novo, over the objection of the petitioner. For this reason, petitioner contends, the decision of Commissioner Ocampo should be set aside and rendered without effect.

The interpretation placed on the above ruling of this Court by Commissioner Ocampo is indeed erroneous, as it fails to grasp its real import and significance. The rationale of the rule is none other than to make the Commission, or any of the Commissioners who may be authorized for this purpose, to try the case or, receive the evidence itself, as the law requires, so that it may have the necessary opportunity for observation and appreciation of the evidence to enable it to reach an accurate and intelligent conclusion. Mere re-submission of the evidence already presented would not meet this compelling objective, the only exception being when the opposing parties agree to such re-submission. This is a privilege that can exercise or waive in the use of their discretion. Inasmuch as Commissioner Ocampo has not observed the directive contained in the decision adverted to and it appearing that this decision has been concurred in by the other two Commissioners, we are of the opinion that the respondent Commission has committed an abuse of discretion in overruling the petitioner to the re-submission of the evidence presented by the applicant before Attorney Aspillera.

We notice, however, that the incident relative to the resubmission of the evidence of the application took place in connection only with the hearing set by the Commission for the purpose of determining if said applicant could be given a provisional or authority to continue operating her 10-ton ice plant in Lipa City pending hearing and final determination of the case. The hearing was set at the express instance of the applicant in view of the attitude of the oppositor in asking for an indefinite postponement of the hearing on the merits. The Commission found that the applicant had made considerable investment to acquire and install her 10-ton ice plant in the city of Lipa and that there was an urgent need for ice not only by the people of that city but also of the towns of Cuenca, Alitagtag and Ibaan, which condition had existed and continued to exist since the original decision in this case had been rendered, for which reasons the Commission found sufficient warrant the issuance of a provisional permit. In so granting such provisional permit, the Commission partly said: "If the best interests and convenience of the public are to be subserved, applicant should be granted a provisional permit, to continue operating her plant while this case is being litigated. To order the closing down of applicant's plant in the face of the evidence showing that the public needs her service would be a disservice to the public. This provisional authority should be granted because the public's need for the service is urgent and the hearing and final determination of this case will necessarily take time."

We are of the opinion that while the evidence presented by the applicant has been admitted in violation of the directive of this Court, however, such evidence may serve as justification, if the Commission so finds it, to warrant the issuance of a provisional permit. There is nothing in the law which prohibits the Commission from receiving any pertinent evidence for the purpose of acting on a petition for the provisional permit. The law is silent as to the procedure to be followed with regard to provisional permit. The law even empowers the Commission to act, without hearing, on certain matters of public interest, "subject to established limitations and exceptions and saving provisions, to the contrary" (section 17, Com. Act 146, as amended). There being no express prohibition in the law, nor any provision to the contrary, we hold that the re-submitted evidence may serve as basis for the issuance of a provisional permit to the applicant.

A case in point Peckvs.Public Utilities Commission, 170 N.E. 364. In this case, certificates 82 and 83, for interstate bus transportation between Toledo and Sylvania, Ohio, were owned by the Black Hawk Lines, Inc., and such company was conducting operations thereunder. Upon the application of certain creditors, a receiver was appointed. Later, Michigan-Ohio Bus Lines, Inc., filed an application for an extension of its certificate No 84 to cover the same route theretofore operated on under certificates 82 and 83 by the Black Hawk Lines, Inc. The Commission, without notice to the receiver or to the Black Hawks Lines, Inc., issued an order granting temporarily an extension of certificate No. 847 to operate over what had theretofore been routes 82 and 83. On appeal, the grant of this temporary permit was assigned as error. The Supreme Court of Ohio justified the action of the Commission saying on this point as follows:

As regards the contention of petitioner that Public Service Commission has no power to grant temporary or provisional permit under the law, it suffices for us to state that the Commission has such power when the purpose of the permit is to meet an urgent public necessity (Javellanavs.La Paz Ice Plant and Cold Storage Co., 64 Phil., 893; Ablaza Transportation Co., Inc.,vs.Pampanga Bus Inc., 88 Phil., 412).

Wherefore, the petition is denied with costs against the petitioner.

It is ordered that the Public Service Commission immediately set the hearings of this case for trial de novo in line with the ruling of this Court in G.R. No. L-3629.^*

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes and Jugo, JJ.,concur.

Footnotes