Vda de Lat v. Public Service Commission

4. Vda. De Lat v. Public Service Commission 1.
Whether or not the petitioners were deprived of their day in Court

February 26, 1988 | J. Gancayco | Requisites for Grant of Certificate of to make the proceeding in the respondent Public Service
Public Convenience Commission null and void.
2. Whether or not the private respondent was validly awarded the
questioned Certificate of Public Convenience to operate an ice plant
FACTS: in Davao City.
1. Private respondent Roberto C. Diaz filed an application with the
respondent Public Service Commission for a Certificate of Public RATIO:
Convenience and Necessity to operate and maintain an ice plant 1. No. It is very clear from the records that the petitioners were given
service in Davao City notice and opportunity to be heard negating the petitioners'
2. He alleged that he is financially capable to operate and maintain the declaration that they were deprived of their day in court. respondent
proposed service, and that public necessity and convenience will be Commission did, that the private respondent duly complied with the
promoted in a proper and suitable manner with the approval of his required notice of hearing. There was publication. The petitioners
application. could not have been denied the right to be heard because as their
3. The application was published in two newspapers of general counsel even admits, he agreed to the setting of the hearing of the
circulation and notices were given to affected parties, including the case for August 19, 1970 at 9 o'clock in the morning. Their
petitioner. negligence cannot now be passed on to the respondent Commission
4. There were no oppositions during the hearing of the Application and which only did the right thing of proceeding with the case, which
the Opposition, hence the Commission declared the case had become uncontested.
uncontested and received the evidence of private respondent 2. Yes. It cannot be said that the Decision of the respondent
5. Provisional authority was granted to private respondent and was Commission is arbitrary. The application was not outrightly
extended twice before finally granting a CPCN approved upon reception of the evidence of the private respondent.
6. Petitioners now contend that decision of the Commission granting On the contrary, the respondent Commission took time to consider
the CPCN be set aside and declared null and void because of the and weigh such evidence as can be seen from the fact that the private
following: respondent was granted only a provisional authority which was
a. The decision was rendered without due process because twice extended, before the case was finally determined.
they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of
private respondent (they claim that their non-appearance We are convinced that the private respondent deserves to be
during the hearing was due to their counsel’s mistake) awarded the Certificate of Public Convenience. He was able to fully
b. The awarding of the CPCN was based merely on private satisfy the requisites before such a certificate may be granted,
respondent’s uncorroborated testimony namely:
c. Such grant would amount to competition that would (1) the applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a
damage their business corporation or co-partnership, association or joint-stock
ISSUES: company constituted and organized under the laws of the
Philippines, 60 per centum at least of the stock or paid-up
capital of which belong entirely to citizens of the
Philippines;
(2) the applicant must be financially capable of undertaking
the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities
incident to its operations; and
(3) the applicant must prove that the operation of the public
service proposed and the authorization to do business will
promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner.
The allegation of the petitioners that the grant of Certificate of

Public Convenience to the private respondent would result in
ruinous competition amounting to damage of their business 12(12)
is unconvincing. In order that the opposition based on ruinous
competition may prosper, it must be shown that the opponent would
be deprived of their profits on the capital invested in its business.
The mere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not
sufficient to prove ruinous competition.
SEPARATE OPINIONS: None

Vda de Lat v. Public Service Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda de Lat v. Public Service Commission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vda de Lat v. Public Service Commission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4. Vda. De Lat v. Public Service Commission 1.

Whether or not the petitioners were deprived of their day in Court

The allegation of the petitioners that the grant of Certificate of

SEPARATE OPINIONS: None

You might also like