TITLE: PCFI VS NTC

[G.R. No. L-63318]

August 18, 1984| Ponente: MAKASIAR, J. | STATCON: NATURE OF THE RULES OF STAT CON

PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner,

vs.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
TELEPHONE CO., respondents.

Tomas C. Llamas for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondent NTC.
Eliseo Alampay, Jr., Graciano C. Regala and Augusto San Pedro for private respondents.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On March 20, 1980, PLDT filed a petition for approval of its Revised Subscriber Investment Plan.
Respondent NTC promulgated a decision dated November 22, 1982 which approved a revised
schedule of rates (translation: phone bills went up) which was within the limits of Presidential Decree
No. 217, the law that regulated the telephone industry. Petitioner PCF filed this petition seeking to
annul this decision.

It is the submission of the petitioner that the SIP schedule presented by the PLDT is pre-mature and,
therefore, illegal and baseless, because the NTC has not yet promulgated the required rules and
regulations implementing Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 217.

On November 25, 1983, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision annulling the NTC decision,
interpreting the provisions for pertinent rules and regulations of Section 2 of PD 217 as mandatory.

However, NTC and PLDT filed for a motion for reconsideration hence, this case at bar.

ISSUE/S:

1. Whether or not Section 2 of PD 217 is mandatory in the exercise of NTC’s jurisdiction over
applications of SIP schedules - NO

RULING
WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 25, 1983 IS HEREBY RECONSIDERED AND
SET ASIDE AND THE PETTION IS HEREBY DISMISSED.

RATIO:
Phrase “may be promulgated” should not be interpreted to mean “shall” or “must.” PD 217 does not
command the NTC to promulgate rules. It can function under existing rules. The mandatory part of
the provision is the implementation of the policies declared in PD 217.

The basic canon of statutory interpretation is Plain Language Rule or Verba Legis Rule. The word
used in the law must be given its ordinary meaning, unless a contrary intent is manifest from the law
itself.
Hence, the phrase “may be promulgated” should not be construed to mean “shall” or “must.” It shall
be interpreted in its ordinary sense as permissive or discretionary on the part of the delegate – Board
of Communications then, NTC now – whether or not to promulgate pertinent rules and regulations.
There is nothing in PD 217 which command that the phrase “may be promulgated” should be
construed as “should be promulgated.” The National Telecommunications Commission can function
and has functioned without additional rules, aside from existing Public Service Law, as amended, and
the existing rules already issued by the Public Service Commission, as well as the 1978 rules issued
by Board of Communications, the immediate predecessor of NTC.