You are on page 1of 3

CONSTI LAW 2 (ATTY. TAGARDA-MABILEN) Kani lang jud ako nakaya.

mu panaway ha. Hehe. Hope these
EMINENT DOMAIN could help. Good luck and God


RP VS PLDT (Reyes, J.B.L.,J.)

26 SCRA 620


-soon after its creation in 1947, the Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own Govt.
Telephone System by utilizing its own appropriation and equipment and by renting trunk lines of
the PLDT to enable govt. offices to cal private parties

-its application for the use of these trunk lines was in the usual form of applications for telephone
service, containing a statement, above the signature of the applicant, that the latter will abide by
the rules and regulations of the PLDT which are on file with the Public Service Commission.

-one of the many rules prohibits the public use of the service furnished by the telephone
subscriber for his public use.

-PLDT complained that the bureau had used the trunk line not only for the use of government
offices but even to serve private persons or the general public.

-the bureau proposed to the PLDT that they both enter into an interconnecting agreement, with
the govt paying (on a call basis) for all calls passing through the interconnecting facilities from
the Govt. Telephone System to the PLDT. The party agreed provided that it would have a share
of 37 ½ % of gross revenues. The bureau did not agree.

Issue: WON the bureau can require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the govt
telephone system and that of the PLDT.

Ruling: Yes.

RD: It is unquestionable that real property may, through expropriation, be subjected to an

easement of right way. In Sec 6 of Art 13, the State, may in the interest of national welfare,
transfer utilities to public ownership upon just compensation. There is no reason why the State
may not require a public utility to render services in the general interest, provided just
compensation is paid therefor.


PLDT VS NTC (Melencio-Herrerra, J.)

-PLDT assails, by way of certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65, two orders of public respondent

-Order of Dec 12, 1988 – granting Cellcom, Inc. provisional authority to install, operate and
maintain a cellular mobile telephone system in Metro Manila

-PLDT filed an opposition with Motion to Dismiss based on, inter alia, that it has a pending
application with NTC to install and operate a cellular mobile telephone system for domestic and
international service not only in Manila but also in the provinces.

Issue: WON PLDT can justifiably refuse to interconnect.

Ruling: No.

RD: The interconnection which has been required of PLDT is a form of “intervention” with
property rights dictated by the objective of the government to promote the rapid expansion of
telecommunications services in all areas of the Philippines, to maximize the use of
telecommunications facilities available in recognition of the vital role of communications in
nation building. Undoubtedly, the encompassing objective is the common good.

# 11


104 Phil 443


-Juan F. Fajardo – former mayor, as of the time of the filing of this case, of the Municipality of
Baao, Camarines Sur)

-During his term as mayor, Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 was passed—providing that any
person or person/s who will construct a building should before constructing, obtain a written
permit from the Municipal Mayor.

-4 years after the term of Fajardo, he filed a written request to the incumbent municipal mayor
for a permit to construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a parcel of land
registered in Fajardo’s name

* land is located along the national highway separated from a public plaza by a creek

-request for permission was denied because said construction would destroy the view or beauty
of the pubic plaza; Fajardo again requested; denied for the second time

-Fajardo however, proceeded with the construction because they needed a place for residence
very badly; their former house having been destroyed by a typhoon and it was only a leased

-Fajardo was convicted of having violated said ordinance

Issue: WON the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive ; WON it deprived Fajardo of his right
to use his own property.

Ruling: Yes, the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive and it denies Fajardo of his right to
use his own property.

RD: While property may be regulated for the interest of the public welfare, such exercise of
power cannot overstep the bounds by depriving the owner of his rights to tuse said property
without providing him just compensation. A property which is restricted to be used for a
reasonable purpose, beyond regulation, is recognized as a taking.