GR 45161; (October, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45161 ; October 26, 1936
ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU, applicant-petitioner, vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, CAVITE ICE PLANT CO., INC., and FORTUNATO G. LAPID, oppositors-respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Esteban C. Espiritu applied to the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to construct and operate a five-ton daily ice plant in Rosario, Cavite, and to sell ice in Rosario and nine other Cavite municipalities. Three oppositors objected: (1) Fortunato G. Lapid, owner of the Rizal Ice Plant in Parañaque, Rizal, who claimed he could supply the ice needs of the area; (2) Cavite Ice Plant Co., Inc., which operated a ten-ton daily plant in Caridad, Cavite, and maintained ice deposits in several Cavite municipalities; and (3) San Miguel Brewery, which had ice distributors in the same municipalities. The Commission denied Espiritu’s application, finding the existing ice supply sufficient and that a new plant would cause ruinous competition. Espiritu filed a motion for new trial almost two years later, alleging the Cavite Ice Plant Co., Inc. had transferred its business to San Miguel Brewery. The Commission denied the motion, and Espiritu petitioned for review.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission erred in denying Espiritu’s application for a certificate of public convenience to establish and operate a new ice plant in Cavite.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held: (1) The motion for new trial was filed out of time and without justification, violating the principle of non quieta movere (not to disturb settled matters). (2) Ruinous competition is possible in the ice business if supply exceeds demand, and the Commission correctly considered this in protecting existing investments. (3) The ice deposits and distributors maintained by the oppositors in the municipalities are under the Commission’s supervision pursuant to Section 13 of Act No. 3108 . (4) The Commission’s finding that existing ice plants adequately serve the public need in the area was supported by sufficient evidence. The Court’s authority to review Commission decisions is limited to instances where they are not clearly supported by evidence, which was not the case here.
AI Generated by Armztrong.