G.R. No. L-24362. February 26, 1968.
TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER ENRIQUE MEDINA and PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, respondents.

FACTS

On November 28, 1961, the Public Service Commission (PSC) received Resolution No. 86 from the Municipal Board of Tacloban City, requesting a reduction of electric rates charged by the Tacloban Electric Light & Ice Plants Company (the Plant), citing high rates and the Plant’s tax exemption under Republic Act 2995. The PSC later required the Plant to show cause why rates should not be reduced. After a hearing, the PSC, in a decision dated May 3, 1963, ordered the Plant to reduce its rates by 10% effective June 1963. The Plant filed a motion for reconsideration on December 11, 1963, and a supplemental motion on February 25, 1965, arguing the rates were unreasonable, confiscatory, and determined without due process. On February 3, 1965, the PSC denied the motion for reconsideration by a 33 vote (Commissioners Medina, Guinto, and de Guzman concurring; Commissioners Perfecto, Fornier, and Panganiban dissenting). The supplemental motion was denied on March 12, 1965, with only Commissioner Medina signing the order. The Plant’s subsequent motions to set aside the orders and to break the tie vote were not set for hearing. The Plant then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the orders, enjoin the decision’s enforcement, order the breaking of the tie vote, and suspend the appeal period.

ISSUE

1. Whether the promulgation of the orders dated February 3, 1965 (denying the motion for reconsideration) and March 12, 1965 (denying the supplemental motion) was improper due to the lack of four concurring Commissioners as required by Section 3 of the Public Service Act, as amended.
2. Whether the enforcement of the decision dated May 3, 1963, ordering a 10% rate reduction, was erroneous.

RULING

1. Yes, the promulgation of the orders was improper. Under Section 3, last paragraph, of the Public Service Act, as amended by Republic Act 2677, the concurrence of at least four Commissioners is necessary for the promulgation of a final decision or order resolving a motion for reconsideration. The order of February 3, 1965, was promulgated with only three concurring Commissioners against three dissenting, resulting in a tie vote. The law provides that in case of a tie, the Secretary of Justice may designate judges or attorneys to sit temporarily as Commissioners to resolve the impasse. Commissioner Medina should not have promulgated the order but should have referred the matter to the Secretary of Justice. The denial of the supplemental motion on March 12, 1965, was merely a consequence of the improper denial of the motion for reconsideration and was likewise invalid.
2. No, the enforcement of the decision dated May 3, 1963, was not erroneous. Under Section 33 of the Public Service Act, as amended, orders prescribing rates to be charged are immediately operative. The Supreme Court, citing Manila Electric Co. vs. PSC, held that the PSC has no discretion to suspend such orders; only the Supreme Court may do so. Thus, the decision ordering a 10% rate reduction was immediately effective as of June 1963.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The orders dated February 3, 1965, and March 12, 1965, are annulled. The case is remanded to the PSC for further deliberation and, if necessary, reference to the Secretary of Justice under Section 3 of the Public Service Act, without prejudice to the immediate effectivity (as of June 1963) of the decision dated May 3, 1963. No costs.