G.R. No. L-9555; July 31, 1957
CIPRIANO LANUZA, petitioner, vs. LAT & BELTRAN, oppositors.

FACTS

Petitioner Cipriano Lanuza, owner of an ice cream business with his own ice-making machine in Davao City, applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate a one-ton ice plant. The application was opposed by Lat & Beltran, the existing ice plant operator in the city. The oppositors argued their service was adequate and sufficient to meet public need, and allowing another plant would result in ruinous and wasteful competition. The Public Service Commission, after hearing, denied Lanuza’s application, finding that public convenience did not require another ice plant because the existing service was adequate. Lanuza brought the case to the Supreme Court for review.
The evidence presented by Lanuza and his witnesses (Dominador Dima-ano, Vicente Yngayo, and Avelina Garin) alleged inadequacy in the ice service, citing failures in distribution, occasions when ice was unavailable at the plant or from delivery trucks, and that delivery trucks did not pass certain streets. Lanuza testified he had an ice-making machine for his ice cream business and could produce one ton of ice daily for public sale. The oppositor’s evidence established it had two ice plants in Davao City (12-ton and 10-ton capacities), plus plants in Digos and Magupo, all operated continuously except when brine tanks were full. It had delivery trucks, sold ice directly from its plants, maintained ice storage, and had never exhausted its daily production. The oppositor was the original operator and had previously been authorized to increase plant capacity to meet public demand.

ISSUE

Whether, on the evidence presented, the Public Service Commission was sufficiently justified in concluding that public convenience did not require the operation of another ice plant in Davao City.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Public Service Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s findings of fact, when reasonably supported by evidence, are conclusive. The Court reviewed the evidence and found no justification to overturn the Commission’s conclusion. The applicant’s evidence failed to establish a public need for the proposed service, with witness testimonies being doubtful or contradictory. In contrast, the oppositor’s evidence reasonably supported the finding that its 22-ton daily production in Davao was more than adequate for public needs, rendering a sufficient and adequate distribution service. The Court rejected Lanuza’s argument based on a per capita ice consumption assumption as gratuitous. Complaints about discriminatory rates or refusal to sell small quantities of ice were not grounds for authorizing a new plant where existing production already exceeded public need. A procedural objection regarding the name of the authorized operator (individuals vs. partnership) was deemed inconsequential, as the existence of an adequate service was the determinative fact. The authorization of another plant would only result in wasteful competition.