University of the Philippines College of Law

MSI 2D

Topic Administrative Rulemaking > Fixing of rates, wages, and prices

Case No. G.R. No. 17665. January 9, 1922
Case Name Ynchausti Steamship Co. vs. Public Utility Commissioner
Ponente Johns, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Petitioners are members of the Philippine Shipowners’ Association and are engaged in the operation of vessels in the
country. (Note: only Ynchausti was the named petitioner in this case)
 There was a decrease in the number of businesses they handled so they filed with the Public Utility Commission a
declaration for a 10% increase in shipping rates (above the rates allowed by the Board of Rate Regulation). PUC granted
their request.
 However, because of low wages, the seamen and officers of the vessels held a general strike. In order to resolve this issue,
petitioners filed an amended declaration to further raise the shipping rates, effectively asking for a 15% increase instead.
They proposed that this increase would be on top of the increases that were previously approved by the PUC.
 PUC called for a hearing and ordered that a representative of each shipowner be present.
o All representatives were required to submit an operating account of their vessels. Upon presentation, the PUC
denied the increase of rates for six ships, granted an increase of 10% for two ships, 20% for one ship, and 25%
increase for the others.
 Petitioners took note of the fact:
o that PUC’s decision as to the rates was based on the original cost of the vessel as distinguished from its present
value, and
o that the 5% per annum depreciation was allowed on the original value of the vessel as opposed to the cost of
replacement.
 The Board of Appeal heard petitioners’ appeal but ultimately affirmed the decision of the PUC.
 Petitioners assign the following errors:
o There is no evidence to reasonably support PUC’s decision.
o The 5% per annum depreciation was based on the original cost of the vessel as distinguished from its replacement
cost.
o The allowance of 10% per annum on the investment is based on the original cost of the ship and not on its present
value.
o The average cost of the repairs for the past five years should not be substituted for the actual cost of such repairs
for the operating period which was submitted to the board.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/M PUC was correct in
prescribing the above mentioned
rates to petitioners - NO
Ratio
 There is a legal presumption that the fixed rates are reasonable, and it must be
conceded that the fixing of rates by the Government, through its authorized
agents, involves the exercise of reasonable discretion and, unless there is an abuse
to that discretion, the courts will not interfere.
 Although the fixing of rates is a legislative and governmental power over which
the Government has complete control, it has no power to fix rates that are
unreasonable or to regulate them arbitrarily, and that as to whether a given rate
is fair and reasonable is a judicial question over which the courts have complete
control.
 Different theories of ascertaining what constitutes a reasonable rate: (note: focus
on the present value definition; the others were only briefly mentioned when this
was discussed)
o Net earnings rule
o Original cost
University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI 2D

o Cost of reproduction
o Outstanding capitalization
o Present value – original cost, cost of production, or outstanding
capitalization are not conclusive as to what constitutes reasonable rate;
what should be considered is the present value, i.e. the property’s worth
as a going concern upon which to fix a rate which will produce a fair
return (citing Pond on Public Utilities)
 The concept of fair return was discussed in a slew of prior cases:
o Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Company (US): The cost of reproduction is
not always a fair measure of the present value of the plant if it fails to
take into consideration the depreciation of such property.
o Wilcox v. Consolidated Gas (US): There must be a fair return upon the
reasonable value of the property at the time it is being used for the
public. In order to determine the rate of return upon the reasonable
value of the property at the time it is being used for the public, it, of
course, becomes necessary to ascertain what that value is. As such, the
value of the property is to be determined as of the time when the
inquiry is made regarding the rates. If the property which legally enters
the consideration of the question of rates has increased in value since it
was acquired, the company is entitled to the benefit of such increase.
o National Waterworks Co. v. Kansas City: Original cost and present value
are not equivalent terms.
o Des Moines Water v. City of Desmoines: there must be a reasonable rate
of interest or dividends allowed on the value of the plant.
 Current market price and rate of interest: The valuation should be made
contemporaneous with the fixing of the rate; the proper test in determining the
value is the market price of the property upon which the current rate of interest
is pegged. This is commonly regarded as a fair return and a proper basis for fixing
the rate.
 A public utility should have a fair and reasonable return upon its property which
is used by the public, and, under the modern authorities, the rate is based upon
the physical valuation of the property, because in effect the property is both used
and consumed by the public.
 In an action to condemn land to a public use, the measure of damages to the
owner would be the actual value at the time of the appropriation.
o So, on principle, the vessel here is deemed taken and condemned by the
public at the time of the filing of the petition, and the rate should go up
and down as the physical valuation of the vessel goes up and down, and
the purpose of the hearing is to place a physical valuation upon the
vessel and then base a reasonable rate upon that valuation. Hence, the
original cost of the vessel is not the basis for the valuation and is not
important, except in so far as it may enable the Commissioner to
determine the present value of the vessel.
 When a public utility once enters the public service, it is no longer a free agent
and the control and operation of its property is subject to reasonable rules and
regulations by the public, and to that extent and for that purpose it is a taking of
the property by the public. Hence, when property becomes a public utility, it ipso
facto, for operating purposes, amounts to an actual taking and appropriation of
the property to the public use, so long as it is a public utility. In legal effect such
operation amounts to a pro tanto taking and appropriation.
 It is elementary constitutional law that private property cannot be taken for public
use without just compensation is first assessed and tendered. But where the
taking is not full, final, or complete, but is in the nature only of a continuous daily
 University of the Philippines College of Law
MSI 2D

taking and appropriation, it must follow that there will be a fluctuation in the
market value of the property during the period of public service, which, as to a
vessel, would change with the cost of labor and material necessary for its
construction.
 But in fixing the rate, it would not be fair to the public to base it upon a peak cost,
and, for the same reason, it would not be fair to the owner of the property to
place it upon a minimum cost. Neither would it be fair to either party to base the
rate upon any abnormal condition. A just rate must be founded upon conditions
which are fair and reasonable both to the owner and the public.

 Position of the Attorney-General: it does not appear that the PUC based its
decision exclusively on the original cost and for this reason, its decision must be
affirmed. He avers that the PUC only had two sets of data – the original cost and
the estimated cost; PUC cannot use the latter because it was based on abnormal
war prices. Since no evidence on the reasonable value was presented by
petitioners, it should be presumed that PUC was of the opinion that the original
cost represented the fair value, or at least as close to a fair value there can be.
 Court: This Court takes judicial notice of the World War and of the fact that the
amended declaration was filed eighteen months after peace was declared. If, as
the Attorney-General pointed, the PUC did use the original cost of the vessel, then
its decision was not fair to the petitioners.
o The original cost should only be considered in determining the present
or market value.
o Although it was indeed the petitioners’ duty to submit evidence of
present or market value to the PUC, it does not mean that the PUC is
justified in using the original cost when petitioners failed to submit what
was required of them. As a fair and impartial tribunal, PUC should have
required competent proof of the necessary facts upon which to base the
rates.

RULING

It is the order of this court that this cause be reversed and remanded with directions to the Commissioner to require and take proof
of the present or market value of the vessel, and that, in arriving at such value, he consider the actual cost of the vessel, its cost of
reproduction, and any other evidence which will tend to show its present or market value, and that when the present or market
value of the vessel is thus determined, he shall then fix a reasonable return on the investment based on such value, and that also
the depreciation percentage be based on the same value. On all other questions this court declines to interfere with the order of
the Commissioner. Neither party will recover costs.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES