SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-23686 February 26, 1925
PHIL. SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION vs. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-23686 February 26, 1925

PHILIPPINE SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, vs. THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, Respondent.

Fisher, DeWitt, Perkins and Brady for petitioner.
Attorney-General Villa-Real for respondent.

MALCOLM, J.:

Following the presentation of a petition for review by the Philippine Shipowners' Association in case No. 23686, the Attorney-General moved for dismissal of the case on the ground that the petitioner had not asked for a rehearing before the Public Utility Commission, so that the petition for review filed with this court was premature. We agree with the Attorney-General.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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 part 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 of 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; ... ."chanrobles virtual law library

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.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to the right of the Philippine Shipowners' Association to ask for a rehearing before the Public Utility Commission, after which, should the petition be denied, the order may be brought here for review. Without costs, it is so ordered.

Johnson, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.