GR L 6241; (February, 1954) (3) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6241, L-6231, L-6272 February 26, 1954.
JUAN D. SALVADOR, NATIVIDAD ARIAGA, and MARIANO CACHO, petitioners,
vs.
LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO., INC. and ANOTHER, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Juan D. Salvador, Natividad Ariaga, and Mariano Cacho each applied for a certificate of public convenience to install and operate an ice plant and cold storage in Iloilo City. Their applications were jointly heard by the Public Service Commission (PSC). On March 28, 1950, the PSC granted each petitioner a certificate to operate a 15-ton daily capacity ice plant and a 10,000 cubic foot cold storage in Iloilo City, with authority to sell ice in the city and throughout Iloilo province. Oppositors La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. and Elpidio Javellana filed motions for reconsideration. The PSC initially denied these motions. The oppositors then filed petitions for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 and L-4047-49). On May 28, 1951, the Supreme Court denied La Paz Ice Plant’s petition and affirmed the PSC’s March 28, 1950 decision. This decision became final and entry of judgment was made on July 28, 1951. Subsequently, on March 24, 1952, La Paz Ice Plant filed a motion with the PSC under Section 17(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 , seeking to suspend the operation of the petitioners’ ice plants. On October 3, 1952, PSC Commissioners Prieto and Paredes, Jr. issued orders granting the motion and suspending the operation of the petitioners’ plants. Commissioners Prieto and Paredes, Jr. constituted the majority, while Commissioner Ocampo abstained.
ISSUE
Whether the Public Service Commission (through Commissioners Prieto and Paredes, Jr.) acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders dated October 3, 1952, suspending the operation of the petitioners’ ice plants under Section 17(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 .
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petitions for certiorari, declaring the suspension orders null and void. The Court ruled that Section 17(a) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 , which empowers the Commission to order a public service to cease operations for lacking a certificate of public convenience, does not apply to the petitioners. The petitioners were not unauthorized operators; they were already holders of valid certificates of public convenience granted by the PSC’s final and executory decision of March 28, 1950, which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The proper ground for suspending a certified operator is under Section 16(n) of the same Act, which requires proof, after notice and hearing, that the operator has willfully violated an order or provision of law. The summary suspension ordered by the two Commissioners, based on a mere motion and without evidence of violation, constituted an illegal deprivation of the petitioners’ vested rights and a grave abuse of discretion. The Court further noted that any attempted modifications to the March 28, 1950 decision by the Commissioners in 1951 were ineffective as they were appealed and later declared null by the Supreme Court, which reinstated the original decision in full.