G.R. No. L-47658; April 22, 1941
CLEMENTE TANJANGCO, applicant-appellee, vs. JOSE DE BORJA, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Applicant-appellee Clemente Tanjangco filed an application with the Public Service Commission for a certificate of public convenience to operate a 10-ton ice plant in the municipality of Cainta, Rizal, with authority to sell ice in several municipalities including Cainta, Taytay, Antipolo, Angono, Binangonan, Pasig, Pateros, Tagig, and San Pedro Makati. The application was opposed by several parties, including appellant Jose de Borja, on the ground that the proposed ice plant was unnecessary and would result in ruinous competition. Prior to the hearing, an agreement (Exhibit X) was reached between the applicant and most oppositors, limiting the applicant’s sales to the municipalities of Cainta, Taytay, Antipolo, Angono, and Binangonan, thereby removing Pasig, Pateros, Tagig, and San Pedro Makati from the application. Appellant Jose de Borja did not sign this agreement. The Public Service Commission noted that de Borja failed to prosecute his opposition, merely asking for postponements which were not granted. The Commission further found that de Borja had stopped operating an ice plant authorized in Morong, Rizal, and had not established or operated another authorized ice plant in Taytay since 1929, leading the Commission to initiate cancellation of his certificates. The Commission granted Tanjangco’s amended application, finding no ice plant operator in Cainta, the application practically uncontested, and that public interest would be promoted by the grant.

ISSUE

Whether the Public Service Commission erred in granting the certificate of public convenience to applicant Clemente Tanjangco to operate an ice plant, over the opposition of Jose de Borja who claimed it would cause ruinous competition.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court found no reason to disturb the Commission’s conclusions. The contention of ruinous competition was without basis, as the Commission found no established ice plant operator in Cainta where the applicant proposed to locate. The appellant, Jose de Borja, had ceased operations of his authorized plants and had not operated the Taytay plant since 1929, prompting cancellation proceedings. Furthermore, citing precedent (San Miguel Brewery vs. Espiritu and San Miguel Brewery vs. Lapid), the Court reiterated that it is always more advantageous to have an ice plant in the same locality, even if other plants exist nearby. Therefore, the grant of authority to the appellee under the conditions imposed by the Commission was proper and should not be disturbed. The decision was affirmed in all respects, with costs against the oppositor-appellant.