G.R. No. L-12446; May 20, 1960
ELISEO SILVA, petitioner, vs. BELEN CABRERA, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Belen Cabrera filed an application on June 1, 1949, for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate a 15-ton ice plant in Lipa City and sell ice in several Batangas municipalities. Petitioner Eliseo Silva, an existing ice plant operator in Lipa City, opposed the application. An initial decision by a delegated legal division chief granting Cabrera a 10-ton plant was annulled by the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-3629) for improper delegation of authority, ordering a rehearing. During the appeal, Cabrera installed and began operating her plant. She was later granted a provisional permit to operate. Silva’s subsequent petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-5162) to annul this permit and seek another rehearing was denied, but a trial de novo was ordered. After the trial de novo and the exclusion of some municipalities from Cabrera’s application, the Public Service Commission rendered a decision on September 20, 1956, granting Cabrera a certificate to operate a 10-ton ice plant in Lipa City and sell in specified areas for 15 years, retroactive to January 7, 1950. On Silva’s motion for reconsideration, the Commission, by order of June 5, 1957, denied a new trial but modified its decision, reducing the authorized daily production from 10 tons to 5 tons. Silva appealed, arguing the grant was not supported by evidence and constituted an abuse of discretion harmful to his business.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred and abused its discretion in granting respondent Belen Cabrera a certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant, based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The issue raised by Silva was factual, depending on the credibility and weight of evidence. The Commission’s decision detailed that Cabrera’s evidence showed Lipa City was growing and populous with insufficient ice supply from Silva’s 5-ton plant, leading to higher prices and irregular service, and that demand in Lipa and nearby towns could reach 20-25 tons daily. Silva’s evidence contended demand was low and his plant, along with another in Tanauan, was sufficient. The Commission found the preponderance of evidence established public need for Cabrera’s service. The Court noted that Silva himself had previously filed applications to increase his plant’s capacity, citing increased demand and population, which contradicted his current opposition. The Commission had ample opportunity to evaluate the facts and demonstrated consideration of Silva’s evidence by modifying its initial decision to reduce Cabrera’s authorized capacity based on his new evidence. Therefore, the grant was supported by evidence and not an abuse of discretion.