G.R. No. L-4347 - JANUARY 1953 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4347January 31, 1953 Elpidio Javellana vs. Dominador Barilea G.R. No. L-5654January 30, 1953 Luis San Juan vs. Santos Calderon, et al. G.R. No. L-5527January 30, 1953 Salvador Fernandez vs. Pablo Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-5360January 30, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Leandro Dimapilis G.R. No. L-5346January 30, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Aguilando, et al. G.R. No. L-5159January 30, 1953 Canas Plantation Co. vs. Bureau of Forestry G.R. No. L-5129January 30, 1953 Francisco Aragon, et al. vs. Conrado Aragon, et al. G.R. No. L-5121January 30, 1953 J.P. Heilbronn Co. vs. National Labor Union G.R. No. L-5059-60January 30, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Simeon Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-5042January 30, 1953 Felicidad Ambat vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. L-4904January 30, 1953 Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Philippie Land-Air-Sea Labor Union G.R. No. L-4551January 30, 1953 Chan Kim Lian vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-3813January 30, 1953 Pauki Madale, et al. vs. Paseyanan Bay Sa Raya, et al. G.R. No. L-3602January 30, 1953 Wong Siu Tong vs. Alejo Aquino G.R. No. L-2708 and L-3355-60January 30, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Segundo M. Acierto G.R. No. L-4963January 29, 1953 Maria Uson vs. Maria del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-5270January 28, 1953 Philippine National Bank vs. Glicerio Javellana, et al. G.R. No. L-4588January 28, 1953 In re: Mateo Lim. Mateo Lim vs. Republic G.R. No. L-3683January 28, 1953 In re: Bangon Du. Bangon Du vs. Republic G.R. No. L-5164January 27, 1953 Conrado V. Singson, et al. vs. Crisanto Aragon, et al. G.R. No. L-5041January 27, 1953 Bay Boulevard Subdivision, Inc. vs. Francisco Sycip, et al. G.R. No. L-4871January 26, 1953 In re: Eugenia Peregrina. Ang Lam vs. Hilario Peregrina G.R. No. L-4377January 23, 1953 Fernando Baquial vs. Felix Amihan, et al. G.R. No. L-4008January 15, 1953 Apolonia Santiago vs. Angela Dionisio, et al. G.R. No. L-6225January 10, 1953 Arsenio H. Lacson vs. Mariano Roque, et al. G.R. No. L-4531January 10, 1953 Ang Si Heng, et al. vs. Wellington Department Store, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-4358January 2, 1953 Jose Saminiada vs. Epifanio Mata, et al. G.R. No. L-3773January 2, 1953 People of the Philippines vs. Urbano Viray, et al. Elpidio Javellana vs. Dominador Barilea Luis San Juan vs. Santos Calderon, et al. Salvador Fernandez vs. Pablo Garcia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Leandro Dimapilis People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Aguilando, et al. Canas Plantation Co. vs. Bureau of Forestry Francisco Aragon, et al. vs. Conrado Aragon, et al. J.P. Heilbronn Co. vs. National Labor Union People of the Philippines vs. Simeon Mendoza, et al. Felicidad Ambat vs. Director of Lands Cebu Portland Cement Co. vs. Philippie Land-Air-Sea Labor Union Chan Kim Lian vs. Republic of the Philippines Pauki Madale, et al. vs. Paseyanan Bay Sa Raya, et al. Wong Siu Tong vs. Alejo Aquino People of the Philippines vs. Segundo M. Acierto Maria Uson vs. Maria del Rosario, et al. Philippine National Bank vs. Glicerio Javellana, et al. In re: Mateo Lim. Mateo Lim vs. Republic In re: Bangon Du. Bangon Du vs. Republic Conrado V. Singson, et al. vs. Crisanto Aragon, et al. Bay Boulevard Subdivision, Inc. vs. Francisco Sycip, et al. In re: Eugenia Peregrina. Ang Lam vs. Hilario Peregrina Fernando Baquial vs. Felix Amihan, et al. Apolonia Santiago vs. Angela Dionisio, et al. Arsenio H. Lacson vs. Mariano Roque, et al. Ang Si Heng, et al. vs. Wellington Department Store, Inc., et al. Jose Saminiada vs. Epifanio Mata, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Urbano Viray, et al.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4347             January 31, 1953

ELPIDIO JAVELLANA,petitioner,
vs.
DOMINADOR BARILEA,respondent.

Arnaldo J. Guzman for petitioner.
Isabelo V. Gandionco for respondent.

REYES,J.:

This is a petition to review a decision of the Public Service Commission granting respondent a certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant.

It appears that petitioner was a pre-war ice plant operator with authority to operate an ice plant with a 10-ton daily capacity in Cadiz, Occidental Negros, and to sell the product of the plant not only in said municipality but also in those of Manapla, Fabrica, Sagay, and Escalante, of the same province. But petitioner's plant was destroyed during the last world war, and when peace came petitioner took time in rehabilitating the plant so that for some time after liberation Cadiz had no iceplant to serve the needs of its inhabitants. Stepping into the breach, respondent in 1947 put up his own iceplant with a set of army surplus ice-making equipment capable of producing one ton of ice daily, and with a temporary permit from the Public Service Commission has since then been manufacturing and selling ice in that town. As respondent's temporary certificate or permit, which was good only till December 31, 1948, was about no expire, respondent applied for extension "for another reasonable period." But petitioner herein, on January 30, 1950, opposed the application, alleging that with the rehabilitation of his own plant (which resumed operation in November of that year) there was no longer any need for another iceplant in Cadiz and that respondent's continued operation would only lead to ruinous and wasteful competition.

Deciding the case on the basis of the evidence submitted, the Public Service Commission found that public convenience required the continuance of respondent's one-ton iceplant and granted him a certificate of public convenience which was to be "valid only for a period of fifteen (15) years from December 6, 1948." And while petitioner has assigned several errors, the real issue is whether or not there is still need for the continuance of respondent's iceplant now that petitioner has already resumed operation.

As petitioner himself states in his brief, this Court, under the provisions of Section 35 of Commonwealth Act 146, is not authorized to weigh the conflicting evidence and substitute its conclusion for that of the Commission. Only where it clearly appears that there was no proof before the Commission reasonably to support its conclusion would this Court be justified in interfering with the Commission's decision. After going over the evidence, we do not find that to be the case here.

Despite petitioner's effort to show that respondent could not have sold as much ice as that shown in his financial statement for the year 1949, Exhibit "E", there is the undeniable fact that even after the resumption of petitioner's operation respondent was able to sell his ice every day, due probably in great measure to the increase of the population of Cadiz from 41,000 in 1939 to 48,000 in 1948, which, as the Commission observes, "has necessarily brought about the corresponding increase in the demand for ice in Cadiz, this demand coming from the general public and from the various business establishments such as refreshment parlors and bars and ice cream peddlers who need ice every day." In addition the Commission also took note of "the demand for ice by fisherman which is considerable." Not to be overlooked is also the fact that petitioner has increased the capacity of his own plant and is serving not only Cadiz but for other municipalities and that what respondent really seeks is merely the conversion of his certificate from a temporary to a semi-permanent one. In line with the policy heretofore followed of stabilizing the operation of those who risked their capital in order to fill a public need at a time when the old operators were unable or unwilling to do so, we think that, everything considered, the decision of the Commission should not be disturbed.

The decision below is therefore affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ.,concur.