PHILIPPINE SHIPOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

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.

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.

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.