By virtue of Act No. 3078, approved on March 16, 1923, the respondent Laoag Electric Light &  Power Co., Inc., obtained a franchise to construct, maintain, and operate an electric light, heat, and  power system, for the purpose of generating and distributing electric light, heat, and power in the municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte.

On October 23, 1925, said corporation obtained from the Public Service Commission, the certificate corresponding to said franchise.

In June,  1928,  the  municipal council  of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, requested the Public Service Commission, to cancel said certificate issued to  the respondent, which request was granted, the commission declaring the franchise forfeited for lack of acceptance in due form and deposit under the law.

But  on December 7, 1928, the  Legislature approved Act No. 3458 providing that notwithstanding any provision in the original franchise to the contrary, the term for accepting the franchise should be extended thirty days from the approval of said Act.

In view of this Act, No. 3458, the Public Service Commission, on April 22,  1929, reconsidered its order and reinstated  the respondent's franchise, but providing as follows:

"It appearing of record, however, that the electric plant installed by the respondents the municipality of Laoag, and its transmission and distribution system have deteriorated to such an extent as to be  unable to furnish service to the population of said  municipality, and in order to avoid a repetition of what happened to the respondent, namely, that the service rendered by it was deficient and inadequate to the needs  of the population,  the commission deems it wise to require the respondent to install a completely new plant as well as a new transmission and distribution system, thereby guaranteeing a  sure,  sufficient, efficient, and adequate service to the inhabitants of the municipality of Laoag, bearing in mind the size and importance of the town as the capital of the Province of Ilocos  Norte; wherefore, the respondent is hereby required to construct and install a new electric plant with a new transmission and distribution system, within the periods fixed  by  the law, and subject to the following:

"The concessionaire and respondent herein,  the Laoag Electric & Power Co., is hereby required and  ordered to carry out the proposed improvements in its plant, constructing a new building therefor; improving its present transmission and distribution system; setting up concrete standard poles on the streets; and installing two group generators of seventy horse-power apiece, 220/380 volts, alternating current, and, within the year from the date of this decision, to install another group of one hundred and  twenty horse-power with the requisite dynamo or generator; which improvements' shall be  carried out under the  direction and supervision of a technical expert, in addition to the electrical engineer of this commission, and in accordance with the provisions herein set forth, and with the plans  and specifications submitted not in conflict herewith.

"The concessionaire and respondent herein is further required :

"(1) To notify this commission upon the  completion of the improvements herein provided  for, so  that the commission electrical engineer may inspect them with a view to determining whether they have been carried out in  accordance with the  plans and specifications herein  submitted;
"(2) To employ proper personnel to be  approved  by this commission, to take charge of the technical workings of the plant;
" (3) To keep its books in accordance with that prescribed by this commission; and
"(4) When the new plant begins functioning to  submit a monthly report of its expenditures and income,  according to a form to be furnished it."   (Pages  73 and 74, Original Record.)

On July 30, 1929, the appellee herein, petitioner  in case No. 13073 of the Public Service Commission, requested said commission to cancel the  franchise granted  to   Laoag Electric Light & Power Co., Inc., in view of the fact that said corporation had not yet commenced to install the new electric plant called for in the last order of the commission dated April 22, 1929,  nor even showed any indication to do so.

At the hearing upon said petition, both the petitioner and the respondent putting in an appearance, the Public Service Commission, in its decision of January 15, 1930, ordered the following:

"In view of the foregoing, the commission finds ,that the respondent has not commenced the installation of the electric plant and the transmission and distribution  system in the municipality of Laoag, Province of Ilocos Norte, within the six months  prescribed by section 8 of Act No. 3078, nor made use of the power conferred  upon it by section 16 of said Act, the commission does  hereby order the confiscation of said franchise and all its inherent rights, as well as the forfeiture to the provincial government  of Ilocos Norte of the P1,000 deposit made in the Insular Treasury in accordance with section 9 of  the aforesaid Act, with damages for non-fulfillment  of the  implied contract involved in the acceptance of  said franchise."  (Page 77, Original Record.)

The respondent appealed therefrom assigning the following as errors:

1. The Public Service Commission erred in finding that the respondent-appellant failed to commence the construction and installation of an electric light plant in the municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, within the six months prescribed by section 8 of Act No. 3078.
   
2. The commission erred in declaring the confiscation of the franchise of the respondent company and all its rights inherent thereto.
   
3. The commission erred in confiscating in favor of the provincial government of Ilocos Norte the deposit of P1,000 made by the respondent company in the Insular Treasury in conformity with section 9 of Act No. 3078.
   
4. The commission erred  in denying the motions for reconsideration filed on behalf of the respondent company."

The appellant alleges that the plans of the new electric plant required by the  commission have already been prepared  and submitted,  and  arrangements made  with the Manila Engineering and Machine Co. for the purchase of the new plant, and P300 spent for the necessary lumber; and that these acts constitute the first steps in the installation  of  the aforesaid  electric plant, and  amount  to  a compliance with the provision of section 8 of the original Act No. 3078 reinstated by the subsequent  Act No. 3458. The commission did not so regard the matter, and considering the circumstances  of the case,  neither are we of the opinion that such acts constitute a fulfillment of the requirement of section 8 of Act No. 3078.

Said section 8  provides  that the  concessionaire

"*   *   *   shall commence work under the supervision and subject to the approval of the electrical engineer of the Public Utility Commission, in accordance with  the  plan, specifications, and  estimates previously approved by the Public Utility Commission, within  six  months time  from and after the date of filing such acceptance, unless prevented by act of God or force  majeure, usurped or military power, martial law, riot, or civil commotion or other inevitable cause" etc.

In the first place, none of the unavoidable  events listed in the law has been shown to be present in this case.   Now then,  does the drafting  and submission of  the  plans and the purchase of lumber for the plant amount to a commencement of the work according to the  spirit and the letter of the law?  It should be noted with  reference to the  plans, that, according to section 8 of Act No. 3078 above quoted in part, they must be approved before "commencing work;" and as to the timber purchased, we do not think  its acquisition amounts to such a commencement of the work.  We are therefore of opinion that neither the drafting nor the submission of the plans, nor the purchase of the timber, constitutes a compliance  with said Act.

With regard to the forfeiture of  the P1,000 deposit, the appellant,  having failed in the  aforementioned  obligation according to section 8 of said Act, violated the provision of paragraph 2 of section 9, Act  No. 3078, and therefore the commission did not  err in  ordering the forfeiture of the P1,000 deposit made by the appellant.

There being no  error in  the decision appealed from, it is hereby  affirmed in its entirety,  with costs against the appellant.   So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street,  Malcolm,  Ostrand, Johns,  and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.