Name of Student: Virgilio Arches

Case Title: Batangas CATV, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No.: 138810
Ponente: Sandoval-Guitierrez
Date of Promulgation: September 29, 2004
FACTS:
On July 28, 1986, Sangguniang Panglungsod enacted a Resolution No. 210 granting the
Batangas CATV a permit to construct, install, and operate a CATV system in Batangas City.
Section 8 if the resolution provides that the Sangguniang Panglungsod is authorized to charged
its subscribers the maximum rates specified therein, “provided, however, that any increase of
rates shall be subject to their approval of the Sangguniang Panglungsod”. Then sometime in
1993, Batangas CATV increased its subscriber rates from P88 per month to P180 per month. The
mayor of Batangas then wrote a letter to Batangas CATV threatening to cancel its permit unless
it secures the approval of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. Therefore, the Batangas CATV filed a
petition for injunction alleging that Sangguniang Panglungsod has no authority to regulate the
subscriber rates charge by CATV operators. On 1995 the RTC decided in favor of Batangas
CATV and was later Reversed by the Court of Appeals on 1999, citing the powers of LGU
vested upon the Local Government Code of 1983.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Sangguniang Panglungsod has jurisdiction to regulate CATV
franchise.
RULING:
No. The Sangguniang Panglungsod has no jurisdiction to regulate CATV franchise
because in the first place there is no such law authorizing the LGUs ’to grant franchises to
operate CATV. What ever authority the LGU had before, had been withdrawn when President
Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1512.
And it is clear in Executive Order No. 436 that in absence of constitutional or legislative
authorization, municipalities has no power to grant franchises.