You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

L-68729 May 29, 1987


RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and KAYUMANGGI
RADIO NETWORK INCORPORATED, respondents.

Facts:
In December 14, 1983 Kayumanggi Radio Network Incorporated filed a complaint
with NTC alleging that Radio Comm was operating in Catarman without certificate of
public convenience and necessity. Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc.
counter-alleged that its telephone services in the areas are covered by the legislative
franchise recognized by NTC and its predecessor Public Service Commission.

After conducting hearing, NTC ordered Radio Communications of the Philippines,


Inc to immediately cease from operating in Catarman, Samar and Sorsogon. Stating
that EO 546 a certificate of public convenience and necessity is mandatory for the
operation of communication utilities and services including radio communications.

Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc then filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied. Petitioner seeks the reversal of the decision of NTC which ordered
them to stop from operating its radio telephone services in Catarman, Samar and
Sorsogon.

Issue:
Whether or not Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc a grantee of legislative
franchise to operate a radio company is required to secure a certificate of public
convenience and necessity before it can operate.

Ruling:
Yes. Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. is required to secure a certificate
of public convenience and necessity before it can operate. Under PD No. 1- the Public
Service Commission was abolished and its functions were transferred to three
specialized regulatory boards, as follows: the Board of Transportation, the Board of
Communications and the Board of Power and Waterworks. The functions so
transferred were still subject to the limitations provided in sections 14 and 15 of the
Public Service Law, as amended.

The new provision states that the exemption enjoyed by radio companies no longer
exists because of the changes. And the argument of the petitioner that the franchise
has been operating for a long time already cannot be sustained.

You might also like