Gipriano Laniiza,  owner  of an  ice cream  business in the city of  Davao  with  an  ice-making machine  of Ms own, lias  applied for a certificate of public convenience to operate a one-ton ice plant  in said city.   The  application was opposed by Lat & Beltran, operator  of an ice plant service  in the  same city, on the grounds that the  oppositor's service was adequate  and  sufficient to  fill the public need and that  to allow  another  plant to  operate would only  result in  ruinous and  wasteful  competition.  And the  Commission having,  after hearing, denied the application  on the  grounds  that  public convenience did  net require  the  operation of another ice plant  because the one operated by oppositor  was  already rendering an  adequate  and sufficient service,  the  case  was  brought here  lor review.

The question for determination is whether, on the  evidence  presented, the Commission  was  sufficiently justified in concluding that public convenience  did  not require the operation  of another ice  plant in the  city of Davao.

The decision  below gives  the following  analysis  of the evidence.

"Applicant's evidence consists oi! his  testimony  and that of three other witnesses  named  Dominador Dima-ano, Vicente  Yngayo  and Avelina Garm and their testimony  is to the effect that  the ice service in Davao City is inadequate! due to the failure of the authorized operator  to properly distribute its ice and the fact that  ice is  not available either  at the plant or  from delivery trucks on many occasions.   These witnesses  while  admitting that  the oppositor  has trucks  used for delivering ice, frequently these  trucks do not go by ihc  streets where witnesses leside so that they  are not able  to buy ice when  they need it.  Applicant  testified that he bought ice-making' machine for the purposes of his ice cream business and  that he can  produce one ton of  ice daily which he desires to sell to  the public.  Evidence of the oppositor purports to establish the authorized capacity  and production of its  ice plant in Davao  City; the actual demand for ice in Davao City, and the fact that its  present production is  much more than what the public needs.

"We  have gone  over the evidence  carefully and we  can  not say that  the  applicant has established  that there is a public need  for the propoaod service.  Applicant admitted that he made no observations of the actual demands  for ice in Davao and  that his prinr cipal complaint ia that it is not possible to  buy  ice worth five or ten centavos from the oppositor's plant  and even  this  complaint, according  to him, was voiced to him by other persons.  He said that he produces his own ice for his  ice cream business and that he has excess ice  to sell to the  public.  Witness  Dima-ano  also testified that he has ice-making machine also for  his  ice cream business but that when he  runs out of  ice,  he  goes  to  the plant of the oppositor and while at  times he can  buy ice  at this plant,  on other occasions  ice can not  be delivered to  him.  He also admitted that delivery trucks of  the oppositor  go  around Davao  City  but at  times these  trucks  do not  pass by  the street  where  he lives. We doubt  the testimony of this  witness that he has  tried to buy ice from the oppositor's plant and  could  not get it,  first  because he  has  his own ice-making: machine,  and  secondly  there  are contradictions in his  testimony particularly  as the number of  times which lie claims he went to the  plant of  the oppositor.  In  direct he  said that he  has  gone  to  the plant  about  ten times  and  on cross lie stated that it must have been about fifty times that  he was able to get  ice from the plant.  Witness Yngayo admitted that when he noeds  ice for his soft-drinks  store, he can buy it either from the delivery truck of the  opposito or from, the tatter's plant.  As  to witness Carin, her complaint is also that the truck of the oppositor does  not pass  by  her  street and that the plant of the oppositor is  too  distant for those who  want  to buy ice in  small quantities.  On the other hand,  the evidence of the oppositor is that it has two ice plants in Davao City, one in  Sta. Ana  of 12 tons and another  in Bolton  Street of 10 tons.   It also  has  a 2% ton plant in  Digos and a 2-ton plant in Magupo; that these  plants are  operated continuously except on  days  When the brine tanks are full of ice  and  the entire  authorized production is  available;  that  it also has ice  storage  rooms  where  it  keeps ice that  is  not sold; that aside from  its delivery trucks it also sells ice from its Bolton plant and has  a  place for  dispensing ice at Sta. Ana where  a man  is  always  on duty  to sell  ice  to  customers, and  that there has  been no  occasion where  the  production of  its plants  was exhausted m one  day  so that  there was no  ice available for  distribution.  The evidence  also shows that oppasitor was the original ice plant operator in Davao and has on two occasions been authorized to increase the capacity  of its plants so as to meet the  demands of  the public".

The decision then  concludes:

'"We are convinced from the evidence that public convenience does not  require the operation of the plant proposed  by the applicant; that the  22 tons of ioe which oppositor produces daily in Davao and more than adequate for the needs  of the public; that oppositor rendors a sufficient and adequate ice distribution service in Davao, and that the authorization of another plant "would only result in wasteful competition, for which reason the opposition to the  application is sustained and it is ordered that the application filed  therein be, as it is hereby denied."

The petitioner for review has submitted no brief.   But it  is argued  in the  petition for review that  on  the  basis of one  kilo of ice  a day  for  each inhabitant  of Davao City  the  22  tons  of ice  produced daily by oppositor's plant can only  serve 22,000 of the 120,000  people living in Davao City.  But the argument is based on the gratuitous  assumption  that every  man, woman  and child in that city would be buying  one kilo of ice a  day.  On the other hand, it appears from the deposition of  Pedro  M. Lat that even during the  dry" season hardly one-half of the ice manufactured  by  the  oppositor  can  be sold, so that a good portion thereof  is lost through melting.  There is  conflict of proff as to the availability of oppositor's ice to people living in  remote places or on streets  where, so it  is  alleged, the oppositcr's  delivery trucks do not  go. But  there is  evidence  reasonably to support the finding of the Commission  that the oppositor has four  ice plants located in different places  and that, aside from delivery trucks,  it also has a place for selling its ice.  We find no justification for going against this finding.   As repeatedly held by this Court; the findings of fact of the Commission, when reasonably supported by the evidence, are conclusive upon this Court (Raymundo Transportation Co. vs. Cervo,¹ G. R. L-3899, May 21, 1952;  Angat-Manila Trans. Co., Inc. vs. Tengco,² G. E. L-5906, May 26, X954;  Estate of Florondo Buan vs. Pampanga Bus Co. & La Mallorca,³  G. R. L-7996, May 31, 1956), and that this Court "cannot weigh the conflicting evidence and substitute its own conclusion in lieu of those made by the Commission  and cannot modify or  set aside the   latter  except when  it clearly appears  that there  was no competent  evidence  before it to support reasonably its decision. * * *."   (Ice and Cold Storage of the Phil. Inc. vs. Valero, 85 Phil., 7).

The claim that the oppositor is charging discriminatory rates and is not  selling  5 or 10  centavos worth of  ice may be a proper subject for complaint with a view to the imposition of corrective measures, but it is hardly a ground for authorizing a  new service where the evidence is clear that the ice produced by the present operator is more than enough to take care of the public need.

Lastly, our attention is called to the fact  that the operation already authorized by the Commission is in the name of Pedro M.  Lat and Luciano  Beltran  and not in that of Lat & Beltran,  which is alleged to  be a partnership.   But the Commission which is supposed to  know its own  records  and may  take judicial cognizance  thereof,  appears to have recognized the operation of the authorized service by Lat & Beltran,  and the objection is really of no moment for,  regardless  of whether the operator authorized is the partnership  itself  or its members as individuals, the fact remains  that there  is already an  existing service which the Commission has found to be amply sufficient, so that it can not be said  that public convenience still requires the establishment  of another ice plant.

In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Commission is affirmed, with costs against  the petitioner.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon,  Padilla,  Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Endencia  and Felix,  JJ., concur.

---

¹ 91  Phil.,  313.
² 95  Phil.,  58.
³ 99  Phil.,  873.