5/21/2018 218039555 Rizal Light Co v Rizal
1/3
RIZAL LIGHT & ICE vs.THE MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL and
THE PUBLIC SERVICCOMMISSIONSeptembe !", #$%" Za'd()a, *+
Fat-. (Note: this decision is a consolidation of 2 cases)
Rizal Light & Ice Co. was granted by the Coission a
certi!cate of "#blic convenience
and necessity for the installation$ o"eration and aintenance of
an electric light$ heat an"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 b"enalized for violation of the conditions
of its certi!cate of "#blic convenience and thereg#lations of the
Coission$ and for fail#re to co"ly with the directives to raise
itsservice 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 inilowatts 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 ofthe "arties
or fail#re of the "etitioner to a""ear at the hearing$
C/mm(--(/n /deed t0eane''at(/n and e)/at(/n /1 pet(t(/ne2- et(3ate
/1 p4b'( /n)en(ene annee--(t5 and t0e 1/1e(t4e /1 (t- 1an0(-e
+etitioner oved for reconsideration of said order on the gro#nd
that its anager was naware of said hearing
inding that the fail#re of the "etitioner to a""ear at the
hearing/ the sole basis of therevocation of "etitioner0s certi!cate
/ was really d#e to the illness of its anager$ theC/mm(--(/n -et
a-(de (t- /de /1 e)/at(/n
#nici"ality forally ased the Coission to revoe "etitioner0s
certi!cate of "#blic
convenience and to forfeit its franchise on the gro#nd$ aong
other things$ that it failed 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 "#blicconvenience as well as the r#les and
reg#lations of the Coission /deed t0e
ane''at(/n and e)/at(/n /1 pet(t(/ne2- et(3ate /1 p4b'(
/n)en(ene ant0e 1/1e(t4e /1 (t- 1an0(-e
"etitioner oved for reconsideration of the decision b#t before
said otion for
reconsideration was !led$ %orong lectric !led with the Coission
an a""lication for acerti!cate of "#blic convenience and necessity
for said service
+etitioner o""osed the a""lication of %orong lectric
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 thehearing of the case and the
rece"tion of evidence to %r. +edro ,. *alavera who is not allowed
bylaw to hear the sae
5"etitioner contends that while %r. +edro ,. *alavera$ who
cond#cted the hearings of thecase below$ is a division chief$ he is
not a lawyer. 6s s#ch$ #nder ,ection 72 ofCoonwealth 6ct No. 89$ as
aended$ the Coission sho#ld not have delegated tohi 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 #nwarrantedbeca#se no s#cient evidence was add#ced
against the "etitioner and that "etitioner was notable to "resent
evidence in its defense
