G.R. No. L-5619




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-5619 November 22, 1954 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC., recurrente, vs. BAYVIEW THEATER CO., INC., recurrida. Sres. Evaristo R. Sandoval y Basilio Francisco en representacion de la recurrente. Don V. Siam Melliza en representatcion de la recurrida. PABLO, J.: En 24 de julio 1950 la Butuan Sawmill, Inc., presentouna solicitud a la Comision de Servicios Publicos (causa No. 57855) pidiendo que se expidiese a su favor un certificadode conveniencia publica para instalar y operar una fabrica de fluido electrico en el municipio de Nasipit, Agusan, de acuerdo con la franquicia concedida por la Ley de la Republica No. 497. Contra esta solicitud se opusola Bayview Theater Co. Inc., en 21 de septiembre delmismos año, alegando que ya habia solicitado a la Comision, en la causa No. 57212, la aprobacion de la franquicia concedida a ella por el consejo municipal de Nasipit parainstalar y operar una fabrica de fluido electrico en elmismo, municipio; que despues de concedida la franquicia municipal comenzo inmediatamente los trabajos de instlacion, y luego inauguro el servicio electrico en dicho municipio; que hasta entonces nadie habia pensado en proveerservicio electrico sino cuando la recurrida ya habia comenzadoa suministrarlo. Las dos causas fueron vistas conjuntamente en 3 de julio de 1951 ante el Comisionado Hon. Feliciano Ocampo, y parte de las pruebas fueron presentadas ante el jefe da la division industrial de la Comision. Sometidas la causas, la Comision de Servicios Publicos dicto sentencia en 1.º de marzo de 1952, denegando la solicitud de la Butuan Sawmill, Inc. en la causa No. 57855 y concediendo la solicitud de la Bayview Theater, Co., Inc. en la causa No. 57212, Dentro del plazo reglamentario, la recurrente presento peticion de revision. La recurrente alega que la Comision de Servicios Publicoserro (1) al sobreseer su solicitud por haber dejado deinstalar y operar la fabrica de fluido electrico en el municipio de Nasipit dentro de un ano y medio desde la aprobacion de la franquicia legislativa, como lo eige al artculo1.º de la Ley de la Republica No. 497; (2) al no declararque la franquicia mediante ley concedida a la recurrentees preferente a la franquicia municipal concedida a la recurrida; y (3) que la decision es contraria a las pruebas obrantes en autos. Las conclusiones de hecho de la Comission de Servicios Publicos son las siguientes: It appears from the records and the evidence presented at the hearing of these cases that on November 5, 1948, the Muncipal Mayor of Nasipit, on demand of the people, requested the Bayview Theater Co., Inc. to render electric service to the people of Nasipit; that the Bayview Theater Co., Inc., acting on said request of the Municipal Mayor applied to the Municipal Council of Nasipit fora special permit to install and operate its 10 Kva, generating unitin the municipality of Nasipit; that the special permit was granted by the Municipal Council of Nasipit in its Resolution No. 38, datedMay 28, 1949, that by virtue of said special permit, BayviewTheater Co., Inc. installed and operated its 10 Kva. generating unit and commenced the rendition of its service on August 15, 1949, and that the Bayview Theater Co., Inc., since the commencement of its operation has been and is at present continously rendering electric service in Nasipit. On May 17, 1950 the Municipal Council of Nasipit granted Bayview Theater Co., Inc., a franchise in its Resolution No. 34. On May 30, 1950, the Provincial Board of Agusan passed Resolution No. 121, forwarding to the Public Service Commission Resolution No.34, series of 1950, of the Municipal Council of Nasipit and recommending its approval. The Bayview Theater Co., Inc., filed its application in Case No. 57212 on June 6, 1950. In a letter dated June 23, 1950, the Commission adivsed the Bayview Theater Co., Inc., to secure from the Provincial Board of Agusan express approval and not just a recommendation for approval of its municipal franchise. On June 7, 1950, the Municipal Council of Nasipit passed Resolution No. 37 protesting to the President of the Philippines against the approval of House Bill No. 591, granting a franchise to Butuan Sawmill, Inc. The Bill was signed by the President and became Act No. 497 on June 12, 1950. In view of the enactment of Act No. 497, the Provincial Board of Agusan adopted Resolution No. 142 on June 30, 1950 disapproving the action taken by the Municipal Council of Nasipit in protesting against the approval of the bill granting the franchise to Butuan Sawmill, Inc. OnJuly 11, 1950, however, the Provincial Board passed Resolution No. 150, approving Resolution No. 34, dated May 17, 1950, of the Municipal Council of Nasipit, granting the franchise to BayviewTheater Co., Inc. The Butuan Sawmill, Inc., filed its application in Case No. 57855 on July 24, 1950. Bayview Theater Co., Inc., is a corporation duly registered in the Securities and Exchange Commission, 90% of the capital of whichare owned by Filipino citizens. The authorized capital of the Company is P50,000. At the time of incorporation, the subscribed capital was P14,650 and the paid-up capital was P13,650. The paid-up capital has since been increased to P24,000. Most of the incorporators are employees of the Nasipit Lumber, Inc. The stockholders of the Company are living in about ninety percent of the total number of houses in the poblacion of Nasipit. The company established first a theater in Nasipit and later extended the facilities of theater to render electric service to the streets and people of Nasipit. When it commenced the rendition of its electric service on August 15, 1959, it had in operation of 10 Kva. generating unit. To meet the demand of the public, the Company replaced the 10 Kva. unit with a 50 Kva. unit in February 1950.It has fully paid for all the equipment including the generating unit, the transformers, and lines and the power house. It is not indebted for any equipment used in the electric plant. At the beginning of its operations, the Company was losing but at the present time, the expenses of rendering the service are about equal to the revenues. There are now 144 customers served with approspectof 30 additional customers in the future. The operation of the plant has improved the town. Prior to the rendition of the electric service, the only recreational facilities in the town of Nasipit were a cockpit and the theater owned by the Company. As a result of the operation of the electric plant, wholesome recreational establishments were opened such as boxing shows and bowling alleys. The use of refrigerators enabled the refreshment parlors to serve cold drinks and the intallation of electric lights enable the private school to offer evening classes. The Butuan Sawmill, Inc. is a Corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines. Its authorized capital stock is P500,000 all of which have been subscribed and paid. It is a closed corporation composed of Rafael Consing who has been its president since its organization in 1920 and his children who are all Filipino citizens. The corporation besides engaging in the lumber and shipping business is an electric plant operator. It is a holder of reconstituted certificates of public convenience and necessity forthe operation of electric services in the City of Butuan and in the municipality of Cabadbaran, Agusan, and is at present operating power plants and actually rendering electric services in said cityand municipality. As grantee of the franchise for the operationof an electric service in the municipality of Nasipit, under RepublicAct No. 497, which is subject to Act. No. 3636 as amended, the Butuan Sawmill, Inc. has filed its written acceptance of the terms and conditions of said franchise and has executed surety bond in the amount of P1,000 within the period fixed in Act No. 3636, as amended. With regards to the public necessity and convenience of an electric service in the town of Nasipit, it appears that the said town is located at the Bay of Nasipit which is one of the best harbors in Northern Mindanao. It is port through which logs and lumber from the province of Agusan are exported to foreign countries. There are about 300 houses in the poblacion and another 300 in outlaying barrios. Electric service is, therefore, urgently needed in the town of Nasipit. The records show that the needs of the inhabitants of Nasipit can be adequately served by one electric plant operator. The question to be resolved by this Commission is who of the two applicants should be authorized to operate an electric service in Nasipit. Estas conclusiones estan sostenidas por las pruebas.El hecho de que no apareciese en la transcripcion de las notas taquigraficas que el 90 por ciento de las casas en la poblacion de Nasipit estan ocupadas por los accionistade la Bayview Theater Co., Inc., no es razon suficientepara que se revoque la decision; es un detalle tan insignificante que, aun descartandolo de la decision, no altera en conjunto de los hechos esenciales probados. La recurrente contiende que no podia comenzar la instalacion de la fabrica, porque (a) el articulo 8 de la LeyNo. 3636, tal como fue enmendada por la Ley del Commonwealth No. 132, dispone que "the grantee shall not exercise any rights or privileges under this franchise, nor commenceany construction thereunder, unless and until the grantee shall first file with the Public Service Commission withinone hundred and twenty days from the date of the approvalof this Act," porque (b) el articulo 9 de dicha ley disponeque "after compliance with the requirements of the next preceding section, the Public Service Commission or its legal successor, by proper order or writ, shall authorize the construction of necessary work for the purposes of this franchise, within a reasonable time to be determined by the said Commission", y porque, (c) ademas, el articulo18 de la Ley No. 146 dispone que es ilegal "to engage in any public service business without having first secured from the Commission a certificate of public convenience . . . except grantees of legislative franchise, expressly exempting such grantees from the requirement of securing a certificate from the Commission". La Comision de Servicos Publicos — arguye la reurrente — solo dicto su decision en estas dos causas en 1.º de marzode 1952; por tanto, la recurrente no podia comenzar lainstalacion dentro del ano y medio concedido por la Ley No. 497, que termina en 12 de diciembre de 1951. Para armonizar las disposiciones de las tres leyes citadas, el ano y medio concedido a la recurrente — segun ella — debe comenzar, no desde la aprobacion de la Ley No. 497, sinodesde la expedicion a su favor del certificado de conveniencia y necesidad publicas. Esta pretension es insostenible. La Ley No. 497 dispone que "Con sujecion a losterminos y condiciones establecidos en la Ley Numero Tres Mil seiscientos treinta y seis, segun esta reformada por la Ley Numero Ciento treinta y dos del Commonwealth, . . . se concede a la Butuan Sawmill, Incorporated, porun periodo de cincuenta anos desde la aprobacion de esta Ley, el derecho, privilegio y autorizacion para construir, sostener y explotar una fabrica de alumbrado, calefacciony fuerza motriz electricos con el objeto de producer y distribuir luz, calor y fuerza motriz electricos para su ventadentro de los limites del municipio de Nasipit, Provinciade Agusan: Entendiendose, Que el poseedor de la franquicia que se concede por esta Ley, empezara a explotarla dentrode un ano y medio desde la aprobacion de dicha franquicia,si no es un empresario en la actualidad; y dentro de seismeses si ya es poseedor de una franquicia municipal. Elin cumplimiento de este requisito dara lugar ipso facto a la canelacion y anulacion de la franquicia." Al tiempode la aprobacion de la ley, la recurrente no explotaba aunel negocio de fluido electrico en Nasipit, ni poseia una franquicia municipal; por tanto, debia comenzar a explotarl negocio dentro de una anoy y medio desde la aprobacionde dicha ley. La falta de cumplimiento de dicha condicionipso facto dio lugar a la cancelacion de la franquicia. El Bill No. 591 o proyecto de ley presentado al efecto conteniala siguiente nota explicativa: "In said municipality (Nasipit), there is no electric plant to furnish the locality with light facilities. It is certainly a blessing for the residents of said municipality if this franchise bill be approved." (Exhibit 1, Bayview Records, Case No. 57855.) En aquel tiempo el gobierno encaminaba todos susesfuerzos por rehabilitar los servicios de utilidad publica destrozados por la guerra, facilitar el establicimeinto de cualquier actividad o empresa para acelerar el mejoramiento de las condiciones economicas dislocadas por laguerra. al aprobar el Bill No. 591 el Congreso tenia evidentemente el proposito de apresurar el establecimientode la fabrica de fluido electrico en el municipio de Nasipit,y por eso, impuso, como condicion, la de que la recurrentecomenzarse el establecimiento de la fabrica dentro del plazofijado despues de concedida la franquicia que ella solicitaba,y el Presidente, al aprobar la Ley No. 497, indudablementetenia tambien el deseo de que alli se estableciese cuantoantes un servicio de fluido electrico. El Congreso sabia el tiempo que se pierde para la concesion de un certificado de conveniencia publica; que si no ponia la condicion de un ano y medio, mucho tiempo transucrriria hasta que el municipio de Nasipit obtuviese servicio de fluido electrico.Era la epoca de la reconstruccion de las areas destruidasy la reorganizacion de todos los elementos disponbles para que el pais saliese de aquilla condicion caotica. Esa condicion de comenzar a ezplotar el negocio de fluido electrico dentro del ano y medio despues de aprobadala Ley No. 497 es incompatible con las disposiciones de losarticulos 8 y 9 de la Ley No. 3636, tal como fue enmendaday articulo 18 de la Ley No. 146: si se cumplen estas tresdisposiciones legales se infringe aquella condicion de unano y medio. Las disposiciones de las leyes citadas sonaplicables a todos los solicitantes de certificado de conniencia y necesidad publicas en en general; pero la condicionimpuesta por la Ley No. 497 de que se instalase dentro deun ano y medio inmediatamente despues de concedida la franquicia, es imperativa para este caso particular, y tanimperativa que sin su cumplimiento queda cancelada la franquicia. La Ley especial que concede una franquiciatiente la indole de contrato privado: se adopta ordinariamentedespues de haberse tenido en cuenta por el Congresolas circumstancias especiales que tiene que remedia y losderechos privados en relacion con los beneficios resultantes para el Estado (Manila Railroad Co. contra Rafferty, 40Jur. Fil., 237). La Ley No. 497 se considera como excepcion general que regula la concesion de certificados de conveniencia y necesidad publicas. "Special provisions relating to specific subjects control general provisions relating to general subjects. The things specially treated will be considered as exceptions to the general provisions." (Cityof Birmingham vs. Southern Express Co. 164 Ala 526, 51 So 159.) Where there are two laws relating to the same subject they must be read together and the provisions of one having a special application to a particular subject will be deemed to be a qualification of, or an exception to, the other act general in its terms. (Mark D.Eagleton vs. Richard Murphy, 138 A. L. R., 749.) A special statute controls a general statute relating to the same subject-matter. Stadler vs. City of Helena, 46 Mont. 128,127, P. 454; Daley vs. Torrey, supra; Franzke vs. Fergus Country,176 Mont. 150, P. 962; Inidan Fred vs. State, 36 Ariz., 48, 282P. 930; State vs. White, 41 Utah, 480, 120 P. 331; In re Hellier's Estate, 169 Cal. 77, 145 P. 1008; Country Sanitation District vs. Payne, 197 Cal. 448, 241 P. 264; R. C. L., 292; State vs. Preston,103 Or. 631, 206 P. 304, 23 A. L. R. 414; Ahern vs. Livermohe Union High School District, 208 Cal. 770, 284 P. 1105; Wulf vs. Fitzpatrick, 124 Kan. 642, 261 P. 838. A special statute coveringa particular subject-matter must be read as an exception to the statute covering the same and other subjects in general terms. State ex. rel. Special Road District vs. Millis, 81 Mont. 86, 261P. 885; Western & Southern Indemnity Co. vs. Chicago Title & TrustCo. 128 Ohio St. 422, 191 N. E. 462. Where special and general statutes relate to the same subject-matter, the special act will prevail as far as the particular subject-matter comes within its provisions. State ex rel. Mc Dowell, Inc., vs. Smith, 334 Mo. 653,67 S. W. (2d) 50; United States vs. hess (C. C. A.) 71 F. (2d)78." (Re Estate of Charles Wilson, 105 A. L. R., 367.) Es principio bien establecido de hermaneutica legal el de que las disposiciones especiales deben prevalecer sobre lasdisposiciones generales, y este Tribunal aplico esta doctrinaen varios casos: "Na pueden aplicarse — dijo en Arayatacontra Joya — al presente caso, como lo ha hecho el Tribunala quo, las disposiciones del Codigo Civil referentes a losbienes de la sociedad de gananciales, puesto que la Ley que regula la adquisicion, disposicion y transmision de losdereochos sobre terrenos de los frailes, adquiridos por elGobierno Insular, establece regla que estan en pugna con dichas disposiciones del Codigo Civil, y siendo estecuerpo legal de caracter general y la Ley No. 1120 de caracterespecial, esta es de preferente aplicacion." (51 Jur. Fil., 689.)"El articulo 176 del Codigo de Procidemiento — dijoen Leyte A. & M. Oil Co. contra Block, Johnston & Greenbaum, — no es tan terminante ni completo para los casos de insolvencia como las disposiciones contenidas en la Leyde Insolvencia, cuyos precedimientos son definitivos en cuanto a la disposicion de los creditos, lo cual no ocurre en las actuaciones sobre depositaria. Por consiguiente,no erro el Juzgado quo al declararse competente en las presentes actuaciones y al no sobreseerlas." (52 Jur. Fil., 442.) "Las disposiciones del Codigo de Prcedimiento Civil — dijo en Philippine Trust Co. contra Macuan, — referentes a la administracion y al inventario de los bienes de la pupila demente casada o no, son de caracter general, puestoque afectan a todos los bienes de la misma indistintamente; al paso que las disposiciones del Codigo Civil referencesa la administracion de los bienes de la misma pupilademente casad son de caracter especial; por consiguiente,estas deben aplicarse con preferencia a aquellas, no siendoposible armonizar ambas disposiciones legales." (54 Jur.Fil., 700.) "Porque el no haber el demandado — dijo en Sancho contra Lizarraga — aportado a la sociedad toda la cantidad por el prometida solo tuvo el efecto de constituirleen deudor a la sociedad de dicha suma y de sus intereses ademas de los danos que por tal motivo se hubieronocasionado, sin que de ello naciera para el demandante el derecho de exigir la rescision del contrato social,bajo el articulo 1124 del mismo Codigo. Este ultimoarticulo no puede aplicarse al case presente pues, serfiere a la resolucion de las obligaciones en general, mientraslos referidos articulos 1681 y 1682 atanen especificamenteal contrato de sociedad en particular. Y es principiobien sabido que los preceptos especiales deben prevalecersobre los generales." (55 Jur. Fil., 643.) Esta doctrina ha sido reafirmada en Philippine Railway Co. contra Collector of Internal Revenue, 91 Phil. 35,(Marzo 25, 1952) y en Visayan Electric contra David, 92 Phil., 969, 49 Off. Gaz., 1385. Cuanto al segundo error, la recurrente no puede reclamarpreferencia porque ella no cumplio con la condicion impuestapor la ley. Se confrima la decision apelada con costas contra la recurrente. Padilla, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion y Reyes, J. B. L., MM., estan conformes. Paras, Pres., esta conforme con el resultado. Separate Opinions BENGZON, J., concurring: I concur. For having failed to "start operation" within one and one-half years from June 12, 1950, the Butuan Sawmill forfieted its franchise granted by Rep. Act No. 497. After the approval of said Act it was unnecessary for petitioner previously to get a certificate of public convenience from the Public Service Commission before beginning business, the question of convenience having already been determined favorably by Congress upon the approvalof Rep. Act No. 497. Indeed, Act No. 3636 as amended by Com. Act No. 132 clearly contemplates that before approving a franchise for electric light and power, the Congress should be satisfied of its convenience. Wherefore, it must be presumed that when it approved Rep. Act No. 497 Congress was convinced of the convenience of permitting the Butuan Sawmill to operate its franchise. It is true that under Act 3636 and Com. Act 132 a certificate of public convenience issued by the Public ServiceCommissioner should be filed before the Congress approves a franchise. But that does not prevent Congress from dispensing with such certificate on occasion, and approving a grant of franchise — as it did in this case. Reason and logic would conclude that in approving the franchise, Congress could not have intended¹ to empowerthe Public Service Commission to nulify the grant, upon a finding that its operation is not for public convenience.Why, that is the first question the Congress decides, and should decide, in the grant of franchises? There is a ground for suspicion that the petitioner, in effect, attempted indirectly to extend the time fixed by Republic Act No. 497 (1 ½ years) to start operation, by means of this doubtful expedient of addressing a petitionto the Public Service Commission and then leisurely waiting for its resolution. Moreover, conceding that it was essential to secure the certificate of the Public Service Commission before starting operations. I believe that petitioner having been to obtain it, did not obtain it within one and one-halfyear from June 12, 1950. Hence its franchise lapsed, ex vi termini. Petitioner argues that its failure to obtain the certificate was due to the delay in the proceeings before the Public Service Commission. Nevertheless, it does not appear that the latter was urged to decide promptly onaccout of the deadline. And surely, mandamus was available if such governmental body had been remiss in the performance of its functions. Anyway, in the matter of privileges granted subject to conditions, the maxim dura lex sed lex may properly be applied. Footnotes BENGZON, J., concurring: ¹ In the absence of clear indication. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation