Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1937 > March 1937 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 45447 & 45448 March 30, 1937 - MIRASOL TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NEGROS TRAVELWAYS CORP.

064 Phil 317:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 45447 & 45448. March 30, 1937.]

MIRASOL TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., Petitioner, v. NEGROS TRAVELWAYS CORPORATION and RUSTICO M. MATUS, Respondents.

Milagros Llerena-Telmo, Facundo San Agustin and Vera. Gregorio & Sarmiento for Petitioner.

Res. A. Sobretodo for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; PETITION FOR A REHEARING FOR THE PERFECTION OF APPEAL UNDER ACT NO. 3108. — The doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of Philippine Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commission (47 Phil., 489), and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Provincial Government of Pampanga (G. R. No. 35105, 56 Phil., 826), to the effect that the filing of an application for a rehearing is a condition precedent indispensable to the taking of an appeal from any order, ruling, or decision of the commission, is inapplicable to the case at bar on the ground that it was based upon section 28 of the old Act No. 3108 requiring the taking of such step before filing a petition for review or certiorari, for which reason in the former case it was stated: "Sections 28 and 35 of the Public Utility Law, Act No. 3108, are applicable. The first cited section provides in part: ’Once a case has been decided after the rehearing, any interested party may, if he so desires, take an appeal to the Supreme Court by following the procedure prescribed in section thirty-five of this Act.’ The last cited section then provides in part: ’Any order made by the Commission may be reviewed on the application of any person or public utility affected thereby, by certiorari in appropriate cases, or by petition, to the Supreme Court, within thirty days from the date upon which such order becomes effective, as herein provided; . . . .’ These two sections must be construed together. They imply that an application for a rehearing is a condition precedent for the perfection of the appeal. That is the practice followed in the Courts of First Instance. That is the practice which should be followed in public utility cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; INNOVATION INTRODUCED BY COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 146. — Sections 34, 35, and 36 of Act No. 146 of the Commonwealth of the Philippines which took effect on November 7, 1936, referring to the review of any order, ruling, or decision of the commission by the Supreme Court, do not impose the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent to an appeal by means of a petition for review. In view of the innovation introduced by this Act, Held: That in appeals from any order, ruling, or decision of the Public Service Commission, by means of a petition for review, it is not necessary, for the perfection thereof, to file a petition for reconsideration or rehearing of the order, ruling or decision in question. The question whether or not the same rule governs in appeals by certiorari is not decided for the present because this point is neither nor submitted for determination.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


The respondents, in their motion, pray for the dismissal of the appeal taken by the petitioner from the decision of the Public Service Commission of January 27, 1937, by reason of said petitioner’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision in question before filing its petition for review in this court on January 29, 1937.

The respondents contend that the law requires the filing of a motion for reconsideration before an appeal may be taken from an order, ruling, or decision of the commission by certiorari or petition for review. Section 34 of Act No. 146 of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, which took effect on November 7, 1936, provides that any interested party may request the reconsideration of any order, ruling, or decision of the commission by means of a petition filed not later than fifteen days after the date of the notice of the order, ruling or decision in question, stating clearly and specifically the grounds upon which it is based. Section 35 confers jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court to review any order, ruling, or decision of the commission and to modify or set aside such order, ruling, or decision when it clearly appears that it is not reasonably supported by the evidence, or that the same is contrary to law, or that it was without the jurisdiction of the commission. Section 36 provides that any order, ruling, or decision of the commission may be reviewed on the application of any person or public service affected thereby, by certiorari in appropriate cases or by petition, to be known as petition fore review, which shall be filed within thirty days from the notification of such order, ruling, or decision or, in case a petition for the reconsideration of such order, ruling or decision is filed and the same is denied, it shall be filed within fifteen days after notice of the order denying reconsideration. None of these sections referring to the review of any order, ruling, or decision of the commission by the Supreme Court imposes the filing of a motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent to an appeal by means of a petition for review.

The doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of Philippine Shipowners’ Association v. Public Utility Commission (47 Phil., 489), and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Provincial Government of Pampanga (G. R. No. 35105, 56 Phil., 826), to the effect that the filing of an application for a rehearing is a condition precedent indispensable to the taking of an appeal from any order, ruling, or decision of the commission, is inapplicable to the case at bar on the ground that it was based upon section 28 of the old Act No. 3108 requiring the taking of such step before filing a petition for review or certiorari, for which reason in the former case it was stated: "Sections 28 and 35 of the Public Utility Law, Act No. 3108, are applicable. The first cited section provides in part: ’Once a case has been decided after the rehearing, any interested party may, if he so desires, take an appeal to the Supreme Court by following the procedure prescribed in section thirty-five of this Act.’ The last cited section then provides in part: ’Any order made by the Commission may be reviewed on the application of any person or public utility affected thereby, by certiorari in appropriate cases, or by petition, to the Supreme Court, within thirty days from the date upon which such order becomes effective, as herein provided; . . . ." These two sections must be construed together. They imply that an application for a rehearing is a condition precedent for the perfection of the appeal. That is the practice followed in the Courts of First Instance. That is the practice which should be followed in public utility cases."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the innovation introduced by Act No. 146, this court holds that in appeals from any order, ruling, or decision of the Public Service Commission, by means of a petition for review, it is not necessary, for the perfection thereof, to file a petition for reconsideration or rehearing of the order, ruling, or decision in question. This court refrains from deciding for the present the question whether or not the same rule governs in appeals by certiorari because this point is neither involved nor submitted for determination.

For the foregoing reasons, the respondents’ motion for dismissal is denied.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1937 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Case No. 804 March 3, 1937 - MANILA LUMBER, INC. v. PABLO ORO

    064 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45211 March 3, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NEMESIO BORENAGA

    064 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 45362 March 4, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    064 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 42701 March 6, 1937 - YUTIVO SONS HARDWARE CO. v. TOMAS CONFESOR

    064 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 43701 March 6, 1937 - ANGELITA JONES v. FELIX HORTIGUELA

    064 Phil 179

  • G.R. No. 42619 March 11, 1937 - NICOLASA MACAM v. JUANA GATMAITAN

    064 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45406 March 11, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRICO ESTURIS Y SALVADOR

    064 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 43412 March 12, 1937 - MATIAS DE LOS SANTOS v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL

    064 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 45459 March 13, 1937 - GREGORIO AGLIPAY v. JUAN RUIZ

    064 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 45463 March 18, 1937 - EMERITA SANTOS v. MODESTO CASTILLO

    064 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 45417 March 20, 1937 - EMILIANA MORTERA VIUDA DE CALVO v. CITY OF MANILA

    064 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 42633 March 23, 1937 - ALFREDO A. SANSON v. VALENTIN DIGNADICE

    064 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 44119 March 30, 1937 - SHARRUF & CO. v. BALOISE FIRE INSURANCE CO.

    064 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 44564 March 30, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN BAYOT

    064 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 45092 March 30, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OLIMPIO CABRERA

    064 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 45179 March 30, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN IRANG

    064 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 45219 March 30, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO BUAN

    064 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 45291 March 30, 1937 - ANTONIA ZAFRA DE ALVIAR v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LA UNION

    064 Phil 301

  • G.R. No. 45323 March 30, 1937 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    064 Phil 312

  • G.R. Nos. 45447 & 45448 March 30, 1937 - MIRASOL TRANSPORTATION CO. v. NEGROS TRAVELWAYS CORP.

    064 Phil 317

  • G.R. No. 45476 March 30, 1937 - ISIDRO ALEJANDRO v. PASTOR M. ENDENCIA

    064 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 45494 March 30, 1937 - ISIDORO DE SANTOS v. ALEX. REYES

    064 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. 45373 March 31, 1937 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO PARANA

    064 Phil 331