GR NO.

138810, SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

BATANGAS CATV, INC. VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, et. al.,

Facts:

On July 28, 1986, respondent Sangunniang Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. 210 granting petitioner a
permit to construct, install, and operate a Community Antenna Television (CATV) system in Batangas
City, which provides rates specified therein, “provided, however, that any increase of rates shall be
subject to the approval of the Sangunniang Panlungsod.”

Sometime in November 1993, petitioner increased its subscription rates from P88.00 to 180.00 per
month. As a result, respondent Mayor wrote petitioner a letter threatening to cancel its permit unless it
secures the approval of respondent Sangunniang Panlungsod.

Petitioner then filed a petition for injuction with the RTC, Batangas City. It alleged that respondent
Sangunniang Panlungsod has no authority to regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators
because under EO No. 205, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has the sole authority
to regulate the CATV operation in the Philippines. The RTC enjoined the respondents from cancelling
petitioner’s permit to operate a Cable CATV system in the City of Batangas. CA reversed and set aside
the RTC’s decision upon the respondents appeal.

Issue:

Is EO No. 205 impliedly repealed by RA No. 7160?

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court finds no basis to conclude that RA no. 7160 repealed EO No. 205, either
expressly or impliedly. It is noteworthy that RA No. 7160 repealing clause, which painstakingly mentions
the specific laws or the parts thereof which are repealed, does not include EO No. 205. Neither is there
an indication the EO No. 205 was impliedly repealed by RA No. 7160. It is settled rule that impliedly
repeals are not lightly presumed in the absence of a clear and unmistakable showing of such intentions.