G.R. No. 45682 and 45683, August 25, 1938
DAGUPAN ICE PLANT CO., INC., petitioner, vs. CONSUELO A. DE LUCERO and GERARDA L. GONZALES-TABORA, respondents.

FACTS

Two consolidated cases originated from the Public Service Commission (PSC). In Case No. 48684, respondent Consuelo A. de Lucero applied for approval of the sale of her certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant in specified municipalities in La Union and Baguio to respondent Gerarda L. Gonzales-Tabora. In Case No. 49216, petitioner Dagupan Ice Plant Co., Inc. opposed that sale and filed a counter-application to sell ice in the same territory and sought the cancellation of de Lucero’s certificate, alleging she had abandoned the operation of her ice plant. The PSC, during a joint hearing, sustained respondents’ objection and excluded petitioner’s evidence on abandonment, ruling it was immaterial to the sale approval, which only required proof of the purchaser’s citizenship, financial capacity, and that the sale would promote public convenience. The PSC approved the sale and denied petitioner’s counter-application, also holding that the barrio of Damortis was within de Lucero’s authorized territory and that any known cessation of operation was sanctioned by the commission.

ISSUE

1. Did the Public Service Commission err in excluding evidence of abandonment of service by the certificate holder?
2. Was the PSC’s decision reasonably supported by evidence and within its jurisdiction?

RULING

1. Yes, the PSC erred in excluding the evidence, but the error was not reversible. The Supreme Court held that while the evidence of abandonment was irrelevant to the approval of the sale (Case No. 48684), it was clearly relevant to the issue of cancellation of the certificate raised in the petitioner’s counter-application (Case No. 49216), which were being heard jointly. However, the error did not warrant reversal because the PSC, in its decision, had taken official cognizance of its own records and found that any known cessation of operation was with its sanction, thus negating the claim of abandonment justifying forfeiture.
2. No, the Supreme Court found no ground to overturn the PSC’s decision. The Court’s jurisdiction to review PSC decisions is limited to instances where there is a clear absence of evidence to reasonably support the decision or where the commission acted without jurisdiction. The Court found that the PSC’s determination on the scope of the territory (including Damortis) and its finding against abandonment were reasonably supported by the evidence before it. Furthermore, the PSC acted within its power under section 33 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (the Public Service Act) to order its decision to take effect immediately.
The challenged decision was affirmed in full force and effect. Costs against the petitioner.

AI Generated by Armztrong.