G.R. No. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951
LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO., INC., petitioner,

vs.
COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS, NATIVIDAD ARIAGA, JUAN SALVADOR, and MARIANO CACHO, respondents.

FACTS

Natividad Ariaga, Juan Salvador, and Mariano Cacho each filed applications (Nos. 46997, 48871, and 49378) with the Public Service Commission (Comision de Utilidades Publicas) for a certificate of public convenience to establish and operate ice plants in Iloilo City and sell ice throughout Panay. The existing operators, La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. and Elpidio Javellana, opposed the applications, arguing their combined daily production of 80 tons was sufficient for public needs. After proceedings, the Commission unanimously granted the applications on March 28, 1950, authorizing each applicant to install a plant and produce 15 tons daily (45 tons total) for sale in Iloilo City and the municipalities of Iloilo province. La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. and Javellana were notified and filed motions for reconsideration. La Paz Ice Plant subsequently filed three petitions for certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. L-4053-55) but later withdrew them. The Commission then declined to resolve Javellana’s pending motion for reconsideration, stating the decision had become final due to La Paz’s appeal. The Supreme Court, in a related case (G.R. Nos. L-4047-49), ordered the Commission to resolve Javellana’s motion. Meanwhile, La Paz Ice Plant filed the present three new petitions for certiorari with mandamus, challenging the Commission’s March 28, 1950 decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in: (a) the procedure for receiving evidence in the applications; and (b) granting the certificates of public convenience to the new applicants.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petitions.
(a) On Procedure: The petitioner is estopped from challenging the procedure for receiving evidence. The records show the Commission, upon request of the parties’ lawyers, authorized the Municipal Judge of Iloilo and later the Chief of the Commission’s Legal Division to receive testimonies by deposition. The petitioner did not object to this procedure during the hearings, in its motion for reconsideration, or during the Commission’s deliberation on that motion. It only raised the issue after its motion was denied. The Court held such an attitude was incorrect and unjust, and the petitioner could not raise these procedural defects for the first time on appeal.
(b) On the Merits: The Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding public convenience required the new ice plants. The Commission’s decision detailed substantial evidence from numerous witnesses demonstrating insufficient ice supply in Iloilo City and province, adversely affecting the fishing industry, fish transport, and general public needs. The Court upheld the Commission’s factual finding that the existing 80-ton capacity was inadequate. The increase of 45 tons would not ruin the existing businesses but would lower prices and improve the supply of fresh fish. The doctrine from San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid was not contravened, as protection of an existing business is not warranted when public convenience requires a new service.
The writ of certiorari does not lie to correct errors of procedure or to amend erroneous conclusions of fact or law. The Court found no act without or in excess of jurisdiction, nor any grave abuse of discretion by the Commission in its March 28, 1950 decision or its subsequent orders. The petitions were denied with costs against the petitioner.