MIRASOL TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. NEGROS TRAVELWAYS CORPORATION AND RUSTICO M. MATUS, RESPONDENTS.

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 my 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 for 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 vs.
Public Utility Commission (47 Phil., 489), and Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company vs. 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.”

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.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepeion, JJ., concur.