GR 24701; (December, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24701 December 16, 1970
INTESTATE ESTATE OF TEOFILO M. TIONGSON, petitioner, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and MARIO Z. LANUZA, respondents.
FACTS
On May 11, 1965, the Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the application of Mario Z. Lanuza for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate a 20-ton daily capacity ice plant in Pagsanjan, Laguna, and to sell ice in Pagsanjan and seventeen other municipalities in Laguna. The petitioner, the Estate of Teofilo M. Tiongson, an existing operator of a 70-ton ice plant in San Pablo City authorized to sell ice in several municipalities including some overlapping with Lanuza’s application, opposed the grant. The principal issue before the PSC was whether sufficient public need for ice existed in the applied territories to justify a new plant. The PSC found, based on evidence, that there was a shortage of ice supply, especially during summer months, affecting households, refreshment parlors, sari-sari stores, and the fishing industry along Laguna de Bay. It noted that the nearest existing ice plant was in Kalayaan (Longos), about 10 kilometers from Pagsanjan, and that the petitioner had closed its former Pagsanjan plant in 1952, thereafter servicing the area from San Pablo with only one delivery truck. The PSC concluded that an ice plant located within the locality would be more advantageous to the public than one located kilometers away.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission erred in finding sufficient evidence of public need to justify the grant of a certificate of public convenience to Mario Z. Lanuza to operate a new ice plant in Pagsanjan, Laguna, and sell ice in eighteen municipalities.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the findings of fact of the PSC, when supported by evidence, are binding. The record contained sufficient evidence, including testimonies from various witnesses (a fish dealer, businessmen, store owners, and a municipal mayor) from different municipalities and the applicant’s own investigation, demonstrating inadequate ice supply and public demand in the applied areas. The Court noted that the petitioner, despite having increased its plant’s capacity over the years, had not established the adequacy of its service to the eighteen municipalities, many of which were far from its San Pablo plant. The rules of “prior operator” and “protection of investment” cannot prevail over public convenience. The authorization for only a 20-ton plant, compared to the petitioner’s 70-ton capacity, indicated a great demand negating ruinous competition and promised public benefit through improved service and potential price reduction.