MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, APPLICANT AND APPELLEE, VS. A L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., OPPONENT AND APPELLANT.

The
Attorney-General has intervened in this case for the sole purpose of
presenting a motion to dismiss the appeal of A. L. Ammen Transportation
Co., Inc., on the ground that the proceedings partake of the nature of
certiorari, notwithstanding which the Public Utility Commission was not
made a party respondent.

The petition for review is entitled “A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., petitioner-opponent, vs.
Manila Railroad Company, respondent-appellant.” The brief filed in
support of the petition is entitled “Manila Railroad Company,
applicant-appellee, vs. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc.,
opponent-appellant.” The principal allegation of the petition, assigned
as errors in the brief, is that there was no evidence before the
Commissioner to support reasonably his order and the said order was
without the jurisdiction of the Commission.

The Public
Utility Law, Act No. 3108, in section 35, provides two distinct
remedies for the consideration by the Supreme Court of orders of the
Public Utility Commission. The first is by certiorari. The second is by
petition for review. As to the first, the law provides that “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
* * *.” What these “appropriate cases” are is defined by the Code of
Civil Procedure, sections 217 and 514. The basis of the petition is
then that the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and there
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The
above-cited section of the Public Utility Law, in the second place,
provides that “Any order made by the Commission may be reviewed on the
application of any person or public utility affected thereby, * * * by
petition, to the Supreme Court, * * *; said petition shall be filed
with the clerk of the Supreme Court and a copy thereof served upon the
secretary of the Commission either personally or by leaving same at the
office of said Commission in the City of Manila. The Supreme Court is
hereby given jurisdiction to review said order of the Commission, and
to modify or set aside such order when it clearly appears that
there was no evidence before the Commission to support reasonably such
order, or that the same was without the jurisdiction of the Commission. * * *”

In certiorari proceedings the writ should be directed to the Public
Utility Commission. If misdirected, the writ must be quashed. The
Commission whose order is challenged as made in excess of jurisdiction
is a necessary party-defendant.

It is not so in petitions
for review for the law has no provision for making the Public Utility
Commission a party to the proceedings and the rules of the Supreme
Court have not so provided as to the procedure for review. As, however,
the petition is served upon the Secretary of the Commission and as the
Attorney-General is the law officer of the Commission, the
Attorney-General would have the right to intervene in appropriate
cases, especially where the petition for review not only concerns the
evidence before the Commission but also challenges the jurisdiction of
the Commission. The procedure for review is not essentially different
from that in ordinary appeals from courts of first instance.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the opponent-appellant must be denied.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.