Appealing from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo  which held Act No. 3108, as  amended by Act No. 3316, constitutional, and which denied the prayer for an injunction prayed for in the complaint, without costs, plaintiff specifies as alleged errors the following:

"I. The court erred in holding, that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin defendant  Commission from enforcing  against plaintiff Act No. 3108 as amended by Act No. 3316, and that plaintiff  must await prosecution  under  said  Act before availing  itself of its constitutional defense.

"II. The court erred in failing to declare Act No. 3108 as amended by Act  No. 3316 invalid and unconstitutional in so far as it affects the business of plaintiff-appellant because it deprives plaintiff of its property without compensation and without due process of law and denies it the equal protection of the law."

We would direct particular attention to the first portion of error No. I, as decisive of the appeal.

Some years ago, this court held the  Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company not a public utility within the  meaning of the law, and so not subject to the  jurisdiction of  the Public Utility (Service) Commission (Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. vs. Public Utility Board [1923], 44 Phil.,  551). Thereafter, the Philippine Legislature amended the Public Utility Law  by the enactment of Act No. 3316  so that in the definition of "public  service" the words "for public use" were eliminated and  in lieu thereof were  inserted the words  "for hire or compensation."  In the meantime, the Iloilo Ice and  Cold Storage Company had changed its name to Iloilo Commercial and Ice Company.

Complaints were filed with the Public  Service Commission by persons operating ice plants in Iloilo, which alleged that the Iloilo Commercial and  Ice  Company was doing business as an ice plant without the required certificate of public convenience.  At the request of the  Public Service Commission,  the provincial  fiscal  of  Iloilo  conducted an investigation and reported that the  allegations contained in the complaints have been substantiated.  In view of  the report of the fiscal, the Public Service Commission instructed him to file a criminal action against the  owner and manager of the Iloilo Commercial and Ice Company, for violation of the provisions of the Public Service Law, as amended.

At this stage, the  Iloilo Commercial and  Ice Company brought a complaint  in the Court of First  Instance of  Iloilo for an injunction to restrain the Public Service Commission and its representatives from enforcing the  Public Service Law against plaintiff, on the ground that it would deprive plaintiff of its property without due process of law.  After hearing the case on its merits, the lower court held against the plaintiff as herein before indicated.

The preliminary  and decisive question  is,  if a Court of First Instance has power to issue a restraining order directed to the Public Service Commission.  We are clearly of the opinion that a Court of First Instance lacks such legal authority.

The Public Service Law,  Act  No. 3108, as  amended, creates a Public Service Commission  which is vested with the powers-and duties therein specified.   The Public Service  Commissioners  are given the  rank, prerogatives,  and privileges of Judges of First Instance.   Any order made by 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 the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is given jurisdiction to review any order  of the  commission and to modify or set it aside (sec. 35).

While the local law does not go as far as the Constitution of  Oklahoma,  by  providing that no court,  except  the Supreme Court on appeal, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct,  or annul  any action of the Corporation Commission within the scope of its authority, yet the effect is the same.  (Southern Oil  Corporation vs. Yale Natural Gas Co.  [1923], 214 Pac, 131.)  In the absence of a specific delegation of jurisdiction to Courts of First  Instance to grant injunctive relief against orders of the Public Service Commission, it would appear that no court, other than the Supreme  Court, possesses such jurisdiction.   To hold otherwise would  amount to a presumption  of power in favor of one branch of the judiciary, as against another branch of  equal  rank.   If every  Court of First  Instance had the right to interfere with the  Public  Service Commission in the due performance of its functions, unutterable confusion would  result.  The remedy at law is adequate, and  consists either in making the proper defense in the criminal action or in the Ice Company following the procedure provided in the Public Service Law.  An  injunction is not the proper remedy, since  other and exclusive remedies are prescribed by law.

Our conclusion makes unnecessary any discussion of the second error assigned or  of that  portion of the  decision of the trial court which holds the Public Service  Law, as amended, constitutional.   The  result will be, in effect, to affirm the judgment below denying the petition for injunction.  So ordered,  with the costs of this instance  against the plaintiff and  appellant.

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