REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch GGG – Quezon City

XXX INC. (formerly, XXX, INC.),

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE No. R-

QZN-20-05248-CV
AAA, For: Injunction and
Defendant. Damages
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x

MEMORANDUM

DEFENDANT AAA (AAA), through counsel,

respectfully states:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. This is a Civil Case for Injunction and Damages

(With an Extremely Urgent Prayer for Issuance of an Ex-
Parte Temporary Restraining Order, Twenty (20)-day
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction) under Rule 58 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure.

2. It seeks to declare as null and void the Order

dated 27 January 2020 (Assailed Order) which granted News
and Entertainment Network Corporation’s (BBB) application
for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to Install,
Operate & Maintain a Local Multi-Point Distribution System
to Deliver Interactive Pay Television and Multimedia
Services.

3. Plaintiff also seeks for the permanent injunction

of AAA from implementing the Assailed Order and issue a
Provisional Authority (PA) in its favor.
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ANTECEDENT

PROCEEDINGS

4. Plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of a writ of

preliminary injunction ultimately involves a question of law,
which calls for the interpretation and review of the powers of
defendant AAA and the extent of the privilege granted to a
legislative franchise holder such as Plaintiff.

xxx

5. In a Manifestation and Motion filed on the same

day, 20 November 2020, Plaintiff manifested its admission of
all the documents submitted by defendant during the
hearing. Plaintiff further manifested that defendant may
dispense with the filing of the FOE and may directly file its
Memorandum.

6. On 25 November 2020, defendant filed its

Formal Offer for the additional documentary evidence.

7. Hence, this Memorandum.

8. At the outset, before going into the specific

grounds on why a writ of preliminary injunction should not
be granted, defendant respectfully submits that the issuance
of the TRO and subsequently, a writ of preliminary injunction
constitutes prejudgment of the main case.

9. This has been iterated by defendant AAA in its

Answer and the Motion for Reconsideration. Thus, this
Memorandum deals with same defenses or issues in those
pleadings, with emphasis on the evidentiary weight of the
additional documents presented, specifically on issue No.
III-b and c.

10. Defendant respectfully opposes the issuance of

the writ of preliminary injunction on the following grounds—

2
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

The issuance of the writ of

preliminary injunction constitutes
prejudgment of the entire
proceedings – Plaintiff’s application
for preliminary injunction and,
more importantly the main case for
permanent injunction.

II

The issues involved in the

preliminary injunction proceedings
are directly intertwined with those
pending before the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and Court of Appeals
(CA), which are the proper fora
where these issues ought to be
threshed out.

III

The Plaintiff failed to prove all the

requisites for a writ of preliminary
injunction to be issued:

a. XXX does not have a clear and

unmistakable right or right in
esse that needs to be protected
because:

i. XXX’s Legislative Franchise

only grants a privilege to
operate as LMDS an MMDS
and not an absolute right
over the said frequencies.

3
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

b. There was no violation of XXX’s

alleged right since:

i. The co-use imposed by AAA

is in accordance with its
mandate, existing laws,
rules and regulations; and

ii. XXX’s right to use Philippine

airwaves were not taken by
AAA without due process of
law.

c. There is no grave or irreparable

injury insofar as:

i. The alleged injury is not

actual, substantial and
demonstrable;

ii. The co-use will not render

impracticable Plaintiff’s
nationwide operations; and

iii. The alleged injury is not

grave and irreparable in
nature that would warrant
the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction.

DISCUSSION

The issuance of the writ of

preliminary injunction constitutes
prejudgment of the entire
proceedings – Plaintiff’s application
for preliminary injunction and,

4
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

more importantly the main case for

permanent injunction.

11. Plaintiff sought the issuance of a writ of

preliminary injunction by reiterating its arguments in the
main case for permanent injunction against the Defendant.

12. On 11 November 2020, Plaintiff filed a

Manifestation informing the Court that it will adopt all the
evidence presented during the TRO hearing and “will no
longer present additional witnesses in support of its
application for a writ of preliminary injunction.”

13. Thus, repleading its arguments for the issuance

of a TRO to the writ of preliminary injunction, Plaintiff claims
and insists on the same allegations: (a) its alleged right to
use the specific frequencies, (b) the supposed violation of
such right when AAA “revoked” its use of the same without
notice and hearing, and (c) would-be actual or threatened
irreparable injury that it would suffer by reason of such
violation.

14. In applying these requisites, Plaintiff XXX insists,

albeit erroneously, that its right to use frequencies – which it
implies to be exclusive and complete – conferred upon it by
legislative franchise and the PAs issued by the State,
through Defendant AAA, was revoked without notice and
hearing.

15. These are the same allegations, both factual

and legal, upon which Plaintiff’s prayer for a final or
permanent injunction rest.

16. In the above-cited case of City of Baguio, et al. v.

Atty. Brian Masweng, et al., citing Power Sites and Signs,
Inc. v. United Neon, the Supreme Court ruled:1

Here, there is no irreparable injury as

understood in law. Rather, the damages alleged by the
petitioner, namely, immense loss in profit and
possible damage claims from clients and the cost

1 Supra, Footnote No. 28.

5
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

of the billboard which is a considerable amount of

money is easily quantifiable, and certainly does
not fall within the concept of irreparable damage
or injury. […]

17. After all the technical discussion, ultimately,

Plaintiff’s witness categorically described the injury as
something very quantifiable, to wit:2

Q: You testified during cross-examination

certain effects on the quality of services that
the defendant AAA’s 27 January 2020 Order
will have on XXX’s business. Apart from
video quality, capacity and number of
subscribers, what else will be affected as a
result of the defendant AAA’s Order of
forcing co-use?

A: In effect, the bottom line is basically its

revenue. Because in general, it will affect
capacity, it will reduce the number of
customers that can be served. So it’s
basically revenue that will be affected.

18. From all the foregoing grounds discussed,

defendant most respectfully submits that the grant of the
TRO must be reversed.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Defendant AAA respectfully prays that

the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction be denied.

Other forms of relief that are just and equitable under

the premises are likewise prayed for.

Makati City, 17 November 2020.

2 TSN, 07 September 2020, Page 12.

6
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JOSE C. CALIDA
Solicitor General
Roll No. 24852
IBP Lifetime No. 015360, 8-18-16
MCLE Exemption No. VII-OSG000228, 11-08-
2019

MARIA VICTORIA V. SARDILLO

Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 47226
IBP Lifetime No. 07223, 12-21-08
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0029360, 11-19-19

CAMILLE B. REMOROZA
Associate Solicitor
Roll No. 70533
IBP O.R. No. 104767, 01/09/2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0018834, 02-01-19

----- ♦ -----
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
Makati City
Tel No. 9827956

EXPLANATION

This Memorandum shall be filed and served by

electronic mail and registered mail due to manpower
constraint.

CAMILLE B. REMOROZA

7
Memorandum
XXX vs.
AAA
CIVIL CASE No. R-QZN-123-456
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

Associate Solicitor

Copy Furnished:

XXX
Counsel for Plaintiff