RIZAL LIGHT & ICE vs.

THE MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL and THE PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION
Septembe !", #$%" & Za'd()a, *+
Fa,t-. (Note: this decision is a consolidation of 2 cases)
Rizal Light & Ice Co. was granted by the Coission a certi!cate of "#blic convenience
and necessity for the installation$ o"eration and aintenance of an electric light$ heat and
"ower service in the #nici"ality of %orong$ Rizal
Coission re&#ired the "etitioner to a""ear before it to show ca#se why it sho#ld not be
"enalized for violation of the conditions of its certi!cate of "#blic convenience and the
reg#lations of the Coission$ and for fail#re to co"ly with the directives to raise its
service voltage and aintain the within the liits "rescribed in the Revised 'rder No. (
of the Coission$ and to ac&#ire and install a )ilowatteter to indicate the load in
)ilowatts at any "artic#lar tie of the generating #nit
*he otion was set for hearing and %r. +edro ,. *alavera$ Chief$ Ind#strial -ivision of the
Coission$ was a#thorized to cond#ct the hearing for the rece"tion of the evidence of
the "arties
.or fail#re of the "etitioner to a""ear at the hearing$ C/mm(--(/n /deed t0e
,an,e''at(/n and e)/,at(/n /1 pet(t(/ne2- ,et(3,ate /1 p4b'(, ,/n)en(en,e and
ne,e--(t5 and t0e 1/1e(t4e /1 (t- 1an,0(-e
+etitioner oved for reconsideration of said order on the gro#nd that its anager was not
aware of said hearing
.inding that the fail#re of the "etitioner to a""ear at the hearing/ the sole basis of the
revocation of "etitioner0s certi!cate / was really d#e to the illness of its anager$ the
C/mm(--(/n -et a-(de (t- /de /1 e)/,at(/n
#nici"ality forally as)ed the Coission to revo)e "etitioner0s certi!cate of "#blic
convenience and to forfeit its franchise on the gro#nd$ aong other things$ that it failed to
co"ly with the conditions of said certi!cate and franchise
ins"ections had been ade of "etitioner0s electric "lant and installations
1hen the case was called for hearing$ "etitioner failed to a""ear again so #nici"ality
was then allowed to "resent its doc#entary evidence$ and thereafter the case was
s#bitted for decision
on the basis of the ins"ection re"orts$ Coission fo#nd that the "etitioner had failed to
co"ly with the directives and had violated the conditions of its certi!cate of "#blic
convenience as well as the r#les and reg#lations of the Coission /deed t0e
,an,e''at(/n and e)/,at(/n /1 pet(t(/ne2- ,et(3,ate /1 p4b'(, ,/n)en(en,e and
t0e 1/1e(t4e /1 (t- 1an,0(-e
"etitioner oved for reconsideration of the decision b#t before said otion for
reconsideration was !led$ %orong 2lectric !led with the Coission an a""lication for a
certi!cate of "#blic convenience and necessity for said service
+etitioner o""osed the a""lication of %orong 2lectric
I--4e-. (only those relevant to our topic)
(() 1'N the Coission acted witho#t or in e3cess of its 4#risdiction when it delegated the
hearing of the case and the rece"tion of evidence to %r. +edro ,. *alavera who is not allowed by
law to hear the sae
5"etitioner contends that while %r. +edro ,. *alavera$ who cond#cted the hearings of the
case below$ is a division chief$ he is not a lawyer. 6s s#ch$ #nder ,ection 72 of
Coonwealth 6ct No. (89$ as aended$ the Coission sho#ld not have delegated to
hi the a#thority to cond#ct the hearings for the rece"tion of evidence of the "arties
(2) 1'N the cancellation of "etitioner0s certi!cate of "#blic convenience was #nwarranted
beca#se no s#:cient evidence was add#ced against the "etitioner and that "etitioner was not
able to "resent evidence in its defense
5"etitioner contends that the evidence consisting of ins"ection re"orts #"on which the
Coission based its decision is ins#:cient and #ntr#stworthy in that (() the a#thors of
said re"orts had not been "#t to test by way of cross5e3aination; (2) the re"orts
constit#te only one side of the "ict#re as "etitioner was not able to "resent evidence in its
defense; (7) 4#dicial notice was not ta)en of the testiony of %r. <arry =. =ernardino$
forer ayor of res"ondent #nici"ality$ to the e>ect that the "etitioner had i"roved its
service before its electric "ower "lant was b#rned which testiony contradicts the
ins"ection re"orts; and (8) the Coission acted both as "rosec#tor and 4#dge / "assing
4#dgent over the very sae evidence "resented by it as "rosec#tor / a sit#ation ?not
cond#cive to the arrival at 4#st and e&#itable decisions?
He'd.
#+ YES BUT+++
Indeed$ %r. *alavera is not a lawyer.

@nder the second "aragra"h of ,ection 72 of
Coonwealth 6ct No. (89$ as aended$

the Coission can only a#thorize a division chief
to hear and investigate a case !led before it if he is a lawyer. <owever$ the "etitioner is
raising this &#estion for the !rst tie in this a""eal. *he record discloses that "etitioner never
ade any ob4ection to the a#thority of %r. *alavera to hear the case and to receive the
evidence of the "arties. 'n the contrary$ "etitioner had a""eared and s#bitted evidence at
the hearings cond#cted by %r. *alavera$ "artic#larly the hearings relative to the otion for
reconsideration of the order cancelling and revo)ing its certi!cate. *hro#gh co#nsel$
"etitioner had entered into agreeents with %r. *alavera$ as hearing o:cer$ and the co#nsel
for res"ondent #nici"ality$ regarding "roced#re in order to abbreviate the "roceedings.

It is
only after the decision in the case t#rned o#t to be adverse to it that "etitioner &#estioned
the "roceedings held before %r. *alavera.
Ob6e,t(/n t/ t0e de'e7at(/n /1 a4t0/(t5 t/ 0ea a ,a-e 3'ed be1/e t0e C/mm(--(/n
and t/ e,e()e t0e e)(den,e (n ,/nne,t(/n t0ee8(t0 (- a p/,ed4a', n/t a
64(-d(,t(/na' p/(nt, and (- 8a()ed b5 1a('4e t/ (ntep/-e t(me'5 t0e /b6e,t(/n and
t0e ,a-e 0ad been de,(ded b5 t0e C/mm(--(/n+

,ince "etitioner has never raised any
ob4ection to the a#thority of %r. *alavera before the Coission$ it sho#ld be deeed to have
waived s#ch "roced#ral defect$ and consonant with the "recedents on the atter$ "etitioner0s
clai that the Coission acted witho#t or in e3cess of 4#risdiction in so a#thorizing %r.
*alavera sho#ld be disissed.

!+ NO+ ,ettled is the r#le that in reviewing the decision of the +#blic ,ervice Coission this
Co#rt is not re&#ired to e3aine the "roof de novo and deterine for itself whether or not the
"re"onderance of evidence really 4#sti!es the decision. *he only f#nction of this Co#rt is to
deterine whether or not there is evidence before the Coission #"on which its decision ight
reasonably be based. *his Co#rt will not s#bstit#te its discretion for that of the Coission on
&#estions of fact and will not interfere in the latter0s decision #nless it clearly a""ears that there
is no evidence to s#""ort it.

Ina-m4,0 a- t0e /n'5 14n,t(/n /1 t0(- C/4t (n e)(e8(n7 t0e
de,(-(/n /1 t0e C/mm(--(/n (- t/ detem(ne 80et0e t0ee (- -49,(ent e)(den,e
be1/e t0e C/mm(--(/n 4p/n 80(,0 (t- de,(-(/n ,an ea-/nab'5 be ba-ed, a- (t (- n/t
e:4(ed t/ e;am(ne t0e p//1 de novo, t0e e)(den,e t0at -0/4'd be made t0e ba-(- /1
t0(- C/4t2- detem(nat(/n -0/4'd be /n'5 t0/-e pe-ented (n t0(- ,a-e be1/e t0e
C/mm(--(/n+ *he Coission based its decision on the ins"ection re"orts s#bitted by its
engineers who cond#cted the ins"ection of "etitioner0s electric service #"on orders of the
Coission.

,aid ins"ection re"orts s"ecify in detail the de!ciencies inc#rred$ and violations
coitted$ by the "etitioner res#lting in the inade&#acy of its service. ,C considers that said
re"orts are s#:cient to serve reasonably as bases of the decision in &#estion. It sho#ld be
e"hasized$ in this connection that said re"orts$ are not ere doc#entary "roofs "resented for
the consideration of the Coission$ b#t are the res#lts of the Coission0s own observations
and investigations which it can rightf#lly ta)e into consideration$ "artic#larly in this case where
the "etitioner had not "resented any evidence in its defense$ and s"ea)ing of "etitioner0s fail#re
to "resent evidence$ as well as its fail#re to cross5e3aine the a#thors of the ins"ection re"orts$
"etitioner sho#ld not co"lain beca#se it had waived not only its right to cross5e3aine b#t also
its right to "resent evidence.