G.R. No. L-16852 July 26, 1966
PILAR L. DE VALENZUELA, petitioner, vs. TITO M. DUPAYA, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pilar L. de Valenzuela, who operates a 6-ton ice plant in Aparri with the right to sell in several municipalities including Lal-lo, opposed the application of respondent Tito M. Dupaya before the Public Service Commission. Dupaya sought authority to establish and operate a 15-ton ice plant in Lal-lo, Cagayan, and to distribute and sell ice therein and in neighboring municipalities. The Commission, through hearing officer Ernesto Alcala, granted Dupaya multiple hearing days over three and a half months to present evidence. In contrast, the Commission granted oppositor de Valenzuela, by order, the opportunity to submit her evidence before the Justice of the Peace of Aparri only until February 10, 1960, later extended to February 24, 1960, with a warning that no further extensions would be granted and failure to complete evidence by that date would result in the case being submitted for decision. De Valenzuela presented four witnesses on February 23 and one more on February 24. She then requested a 15 to 30-day extension, citing that witnesses from Gonzaga could not attend due to a swollen river, but the Commission refused the extension, considered the case submitted, and decided in favor of Dupaya. De Valenzuela appealed, charging the Commission with abuse of discretion for unreasonably restricting her time to present evidence and for rendering a decision without her having completed her evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission gravely abused its discretion in unreasonably restricting the period for the oppositor to present her evidence and in refusing to grant an extension, thereby denying her day in court.

RULING

The Supreme Court found no reversible error or grave abuse of discretion by the Public Service Commission. The limitation of the period for de Valenzuela to present evidence was motivated by the impending retirement of hearing officer Alcala, which was an adequate reason to avoid further delays that would occur if another officer had to acquaint himself with the evidence. While the adherence to the schedule prevented de Valenzuela from presenting some witnesses, there was no showing of what specific testimony they would have provided or that it would have led to a different result. De Valenzuela only indicated that her plant manager would testify that her ice production was more than sufficient for the municipalities where she was authorized to sell, but this did not address the evidence that she did not distribute ice outside Aparri, forcing people from other municipalities to travel there. The Commission also held, based on Supreme Court precedents, that universal demand for ice makes an ice plant in the locality advantageous to the public, and de Valenzuela did not demonstrate how the missing testimony would adversely affect this finding. The proper recourse for de Valenzuela would have been to file a timely motion for rehearing with supporting affidavits from the witnesses, which she did not do. Therefore, the decision of the Public Service Commission was affirmed.