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 a 30-ton daily capacity ice plant and cold storage in Iloilo City. The applications were opposed by existing operators, La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. and Elpidio Javellana. On March 28, 1950, the Public Service Commission (PSC) granted each petitioner a certificate for a 15-ton daily capacity ice plant and a 10,000 cubic foot cold storage, authorizing sale in Iloilo City and throughout Iloilo province. The opponents filed motions for reconsideration. While these were pending, La Paz Ice Plant filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus (G.R. Nos. L-4053-55) with the Supreme Court, which was denied on May 28, 1951, thereby affirming the PSC’s March 28, 1950 decision. The Supreme Court’s 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 Article 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 suspension. Petitioners Salvador, Ariaga, and Cacho then filed the present petitions for certiorari to annul these suspension orders.

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 ice plants of petitioners Salvador, Ariaga, and Cacho.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petitions, annulled the suspension orders, and ordered La Paz Ice Plant to pay costs. The Court ruled that Article 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 legitimate holders of certificates of public convenience granted by the PSC’s final decision of March 28, 1950, which had been affirmed twice by the Supreme Court. The suspension was ordered summarily, without a hearing and without proof that the petitioners had violated any law, order, rule, or regulation of the Commission, as required under Article 16-n of the law for suspending a certified operator. The attempt to justify the suspension based on modified orders issued by Commissioners Prieto and Paredes, Jr. in 1951 failed because those modifications were appealed and later declared null and void by the Supreme Court on December 17, 1952, which reinstated the original March 28, 1950 decision in its entirety. Therefore, the majority of the Commission committed a grave abuse of discretion in ordering the suspension.