This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SUBMITTED TO: ATTY. GOZON SUBMITTED BY: NIKKA BIANCA REMULLA
Petitioners-oppositors filed their Joint Opposition to the aforecited motion. BellTel proposed to install 2. No. private respondent prayed for the promulgation of the working draft of the order granting a provisional authority to private respondent BellTel. Republic Act No.. private respondent BellTel asserted that the NTC was a collegial body and that as such. In said motion. ET. INC. constitute a majority out of the three commissioners composing the NTC. AL. At the time of the filing of this application.R. BellTel) filed with the NTC an Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Procure. 126496. In this second application. it was excluded in the deliberations for service area assignments for local exchange carrier service. two favorable votes out of a maximum three votes by the members of the commission. Since private respondent BellTel was. 1994. together. Inc. 7692 was enacted granting private respondent BellTel a congressional franchise. ET. Operate and Maintain Nationwide Integrated Telecommunications Services and to Charge Rates Therefor and with Further Request for the Issuance of Provisional Authority.600. wireless. private respondent BellTel had not been granted a legislative franchise to engage in the business of telecommunications service. are enough to validly promulgate an NTC decision. G. Install. satellites and fiber optic cable with Public Calling Offices (PCOs) and very small aperture antennas (VSATs) under an integrated system. private respondent BellTel filed with the NTC a second Application praying for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the installation. AL. in his capacity as Commissioner of the NTC.GMCR. NTC denied the said motion in an Order solely filed by Commissioner Simeon Kintanar. (hereafter. BELLTEL. 1994. . ISSUES: Whether or not petitioner can solely deny the application by BellTel. On March 25. On June 13. April 30.000 telephone lines in ten (10) years using the most modern and latest state-of-theart facilities and equipment and to provide a 100% digital local exchange telephone network. an unenfranchised applicant. To support its prayer. microwave radio. vs. on the ground that the said working draft had already been signed or initialed by Deputy Commissioners Dumlao and Perez who. On July 12. at that time. 1997 FACTS: Private respondent Bell Telecommunication Philippines. private respondent BellTel filed a Motion to Promulgate. 1995. operation and maintenance of a combined nationwide local toll (domestic and international) and tandem telephone exchanges and facilities using wire. the day of the hearing.
absent the required concurring vote coming from the rest of the membership of the commission to at least arrive at a majority decision. The NTC acts through a three-man body. When we consider the historical milieu in which the NTC evolved into the quasi-judicial agency it is now under Executive Order No.HELD: No. . Corollarily. the vote alone of the chairman of the commission. The NTC is a collegial body requiring a majority vote out of the three members of the commission in order to validly decide a case or any incident therein. is not sufficient to legally render an NTC order. the vote of Commissioner Kintanar. He alone does not speak for and in behalf of the NTC. 146 which organized the NTC as a three-man commission and expose the illegality of all memorandum circulars negating the collegial nature of the NTC under Executive Order No. as in this case. and the three members of the commission each has one vote to cast in every deliberation concerning a case or any incident therein that is subject to the jurisdiction of the NTC. Commissioner Kintanar is not the National Telecommunications Commission. resolution or decision. we are left with only one logical conclusion: the NTC is a collegial body and was a collegial body even during the time when it was acting as a one-man regime. 146. Simply put.
the provisional authority granted by the NTC has a definite expiry period of 18 months unless sooner renewed. may be revoked. a Cellular Mobile Telephone System and an alpha numeric paging system in Metro Manila and in the Southern Luzon regions. convenience and necessity so demanded. limited to Metro Manila only. It was further issued after due hearing. with PLDT attending and granted after a prima facie showing that ETCI had the necessary legal. to install. As to the second issue. with a prayer for provisional authority to operate within Metro Manila. fraud or error of law. operate. NTC overruled PLDT’s opposition and declared RA 2090 should be liberally construed so as to include the operation of a cellular mobile telephone service as part of services of the franchise. and maintain a cellular mobile telephone service initially in Metro Manila subject to the terms and conditions set forth in its order. PLDT filed a motion to set aside order which was denied by the NTC. 18 October 1990 FACTS: RA 2090 was enacted granting Felix Alberto & Co.PLDT vs. expertise and experience and deserves great weight and respect. and that public interest. The NTC construed the technical term “radiotelephony” liberally as to include the operation of a cellular mobile telephone system. Provisional authority would be meaningless if the grantee were not allowed to operate. 88404. PLDT challenged the NTC orders before the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition. (later ETCI) a franchise to establish radio stations for domestic and transoceanic telecommunications. ETCI filed an application with the NTC for the issuance of a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate. amended or revised by the NTC. etc. The construction given by an administrative agency possessed of the necessary special knowledge. It can only be set aside by judicial intervention on proof of gross abuse of discretion. and does not authorize the installation and operation of an alphanumeric paging system. covers one of four phases. . as its lifetime is limited and may be revoked by the NTC at any time in accordance with law. NTC granted ETCI provisional authority GR 88404. including an interconnection agreement to be entered with PLDT. PLDT filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss. NTC GR No. financial and technical capabilities. ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the provisional authority was properly granted (2) Whether or not ETCI’s franchise includes operation of cellular mobile telephone system (3) Whether or not PLDT can refuse interconnection with ETCI HELD: As to the first issue.
the NTC merely exercised its delegated authority to regulate the use of telecommunication networks when it decreed interconnection. Public need.As to the last issue. PLDT cannot refuse interconnection as such is mandated under RA 6949 or the Municipal Telephone Act of 1989. public interest and convenience will be better served. What interconnection seeks to accomplish is to enable the system to reach out to the greatest number of people possible in line with governmental policies. . With the broader reach. if not the ultimate. considerations. and the common good are the decisive. public interest.
172. 1997. all excess amounts collected from the applicant’s customers as a result of this Order shall either be refunded to them or correspondingly credited in their favor for application to electric bills covering future consumptions. 1993. however. among others. The application also included a prayer for provisional approval of the increase pursuant to Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act and Section 8 of Executive Order No. the ERB requested the Commission on Audit (COA) to conduct an “audit and examination of the books and other records of account of the applicant for such period of time. effective with respect to MERALCO’s billing cycles beginning February 1994. On January 28.184 per kwh.Republic vs. The ERB further ordered that “the provisional relief in the amount of P0. the COA submitted its Audit Report SAO No. The application reflected an average increase of 21 centavos per kilowatthour (kwh) in its distribution charge. Subsequently. 15 November 2002 FACTS: On December 23.017 per kwh. 1994 is hereby superseded and modified and the excess average amount of P0. the ERB issued an Order granting a provisional increase of P0. On February 11. which in no case shall be less than 12 consecutive months. the ERB rendered its decision adopting the above recommendations and authorized MERALCO to implement a rate adjustment in the average amount of P0. Meralco GR 141314. be refunded to [MERALCO’s] customers or correspondingly credited in their favor for future consumption.167 per kilowatthour starting with [MERALCO’s] billing cycles beginning February 1994 until its billing cycles beginning February 1998. that the Board finds. 95-07 (the “COA Report”) which contained. after hearing and submission by the Commission on Audit of an audit report on the books and records of the applicant that the latter is entitled to a lesser increase in rates.” ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that income tax paid by MERALCO should be treated as part of its operating expenses and thus considered in determining the amount of increase in rates imposed by MERALCO . the recommendation not to include income taxes paid by MERALCO as part of its operating expenses for purposes of rate determination and the use of the net average investment method for the computation of the proportionate value of the properties used by MERALCO during the test year for the determination of the rate base. 1994. as it may deem appropriate” and to submit a copy thereof to the ERB immediately upon completion. subject to the condition that In the event.184 per kilowatthour granted under the Board’s Order dated January 28. In the same Order. MERALCO filed with the ERB an application for the revision of its rate schedules.
HELD: Yes. the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right to prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on investment. this standard may be implied. good sense. and a fair. in exercising its power of judicial review. it is essential also to consider the given situation. In the fixing of rates. In determining whether a rate is confiscatory. The principle of separation of powers dictates that courts should hesitate to review the acts of administrative officers except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion . the time-honored principle is that courts should not interfere. The function of the court. The requirement of reasonableness comprehends such rates which must not be so low as to be confiscatory. is to determine whether under the facts and circumstances. or too high as to be oppressive. Thus. In regulating rates charged by public utilities. Thus. the final order entered by the administrative agency is unlawful or unreasonable. among others. The fixing of just and reasonable rates involves a balancing of the investor and the consumer interests. the distribution of energy resources and to fix rates to be charged by public utilities involved in the distribution of electricity. findings and conclusions of the ERB on the rate that can be charged by MERALCO to the public should be respected. the rates prescribed by the State must be one that yields a fair return on the public utility upon the value of the property performing the service and one that is reasonable to the public for the services rendered. What is a just and reasonable rate is a question of fact calling for the exercise of discretion. the State protects the public against arbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services rendered. enlightened and independent judgment. 172 to regulate. In the cases at bar. requirements and opportunities of the utility. However. to the extent that the administrative agency has not been arbitrary or capricious in the exercise of its power. The ERB was created under Executive Order No. It has been held that even in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness.
dated October 6. the NTC issued a Memorandum to all cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS) operators which contained measures to minimize if not totally eliminate the incidence of stealing of cellular phone units. 13-62000 (the Billing Circular) and the NTC Memorandum dated October 6. NTC GR 151908. Meanwhile. petitioners Isla Communications Co. Accordingly. Inc. pending the issuance and finality of the decision in this case. 13-6-2000. on June 22. 2000. 2000. 2000. ISSUES: (1) Whether NTC and not the regular courts has jurisdiction over the case (2) Whether private respondent failed to exhaust available administrative remedy HELD: As to the first issue. The Philippine Star. with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The Memorandum Circular provided that it shall take effect 15 days after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation and three certified true copies thereof furnished the UP Law Center. what is required of the judge who will resolve this issue is a basic familiarity with the workings of the cellular telephone service. On October 20. It was published in the newspaper. the issues raised in the complaint do not entail highly technical matters. .. 12 August 2003 FACTS: Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers. The trial court issued an order granting the writ of preliminary injuction. the provisions of the Memorandum Circular pertaining to the sale and use of prepaid cards and the unit of billing for cellular mobile telephone service took effect 90 days from the effectivity of the Memorandum Circular. On August 30. and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the NTC an action for declaration of nullity of NTC Memorandum Circular No. promulgating rules and regulations on the billing of telecommunications services. 2000. Contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals. the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued on June 16.Smart Communications vs. 2000 Memorandum Circular No. it is the regular court and not the NTC which has jurisdiction over the case. Rather. including prepaid SIM and call cards – and this is judicially known to be within the knowledge of a good percentage of our population – and expertise in fundamental principles of civil law and the Constitution. 2000. the defendants are hereby enjoined from implementing NTC Memorandum Circular 13-6-2000 and the NTC Memorandum.
As to the second issue. In Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. Philippine Coconut Authority it was held: The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party may seek judicial review. However. G . only judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine. has obviously no application here. The resolution in question was issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rulemaking or legislative power. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function. so strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of respondent. In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency.
availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. the complaint was dismissed. They opted to come to Court immediately invoking judicial intervention inspite of the existence administrative remedies available to them. ISSUES: 1. et. GlobeTelecom. 201313 for “Mandatory Injunction With Prayer For Issuance of Preliminary Injunction and Damages” filed by plaintiffs-appellants. and nonobservance thereof is a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before court’s judicial power can be sought. Thus. 2003-119. 2005. Isabela in Civil CaseNo. Thus.Spouses Centeno vs. The requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative of administrative remedies is not absolute.Spouses Rodolfo Centeno and Nena (Nelia) Centenoagainst defendants Municipality of Alicia. claiming that they were deprived of their right to due process. Whether or not the CA has a jurisdiction over the case at bar. with the view of having it disapproved because it is hazardous to the health of the plaintiff and other residents similarly situated. CA-G. Isabela.R. Br.. Inc. the appellate court rendered a decision stating that the plaintiffs could have also presented their grievances to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan when in reviewed Resolution No.. 85254.al. Whether the complaint is pre-mature for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the complaint has no cause of action. The plaintiffs objected the approval of Globe’s application to construct a Tower Antenna in their place. HELD: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. among which are: 1 . Municipality of Isabela.Handog and Magna Restu Philippines Inc. 2. represented by FranciscoDuran. there being instances when it may be dispensed with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately. On June 9. CV No. (hereinafter Globe) represented by Christopher Q. Thus. 22 November 2010 FACTS: Before Us is an appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of CivilProcedure seeking to nullify the order dated 9 June 2005 of Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City.
in view of all the foregoing. wherefore. 10 when there is a violation of due process. the instant appeal is Denied for lack of merit. bears the implied and assumed approval of the latter.when the question raised is purely legal. speedy and adequate remedy. 11 when respondent is a department secretary whose acts. 4 when there is urgent need for judicial intervention. appellants claim principally the denial of due process arising from alleged want of notice to them of the proceedings before the Sangguniang Bayan resulting to violation of their constitutional right for safe. 6 when irreparable damage will be suffered. 8 when strong public interest is involved. as an alter ego of the president. Because the plaintiffs opted to come to court immediately invoking judicial intervention inspite of the existence of administrative remedies available to them. 5 when the claim involved is small. The decision of the RTC in Cauayan City is hereby affirmed and upheld. and from among these exceptions. 7 where there is no other plain. 9 in quo warranto proceedings. 13 when the rule of qualified political agency applies. 12 when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be reasonable. 14 when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. 2 when the administrative body is in estoppel. . healthy and convenient social environment. 3 when the act complained of is patently illegal.
rendered by the Regional Trial Court. and health hazards that may cause them such as the exposure to radiation. Whether or not a writ on injunction should be issued to restrain the defendant from putting up and operating its cell site. Petitioners protested against the construction of Globe’s cell site antenna around the vicinity due to security. who filed a petition before the RTC of Bayombong. which was constructing a VTS on a 400 sq. ISSUES: 1. against Globe Telecoms. Nueva Vizcaya in Civil Case No. 6482 for Injunction with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order plus damages. 78049 FACTS: Before this Court is an appeal assailing the Decision1 dated 11 February 2003 which dismissed the Petition.Evangeline Aala vs. Second Judicial Region. CV No. Bayombong. and HELD: The appellants contend the ruling of the trial court that the perceived health risk of the cell site is unfounded. Nueva Vizcaya. Whether or not Globe should secure an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) before putting up its cell site. They deem that in light of the findings of the World Health organization (WHO) that “there are gaps in knowledge that have been identified for further research to make better assess health risks. The Executive Judge issued a 72-hour TRO and was extended into 20-day period. safety concerns. m. Petitioners-appellants Evangeline Aala. Globe filed an opposition with Motion to Dismiss.R. Inc. environmentalists. et al. Globe Telecom CA-G. Branch XXVII. Various medical experts.” But the RTC which the CA also affirmed ruled in favor of the appellee Globe by relying heavily on the present stand of the Bureau of Health Devices and Technology . are the principal. But Globe opted to adopt the testimony of the amicus curiae Director Agnette Peralta of the bureau of Health Devices and technology under the department of Health. for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order plus damages. and students of the Solano National High School. teachers. 2. and law enforcers became witnesses who tried to prove preponderance of their evidence for or against the construction of the cell site that later petitions filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion. lot at that time.
Memorandum Circular No. The main action for injunctions is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. whether prohibitory or mandatory. may issue. Hence. 2146. Isabela. in an action for injunction. Injunction is a judicial writ. and as such. it being a part of the watershed that supports the hydro-electric dam in Ramon. is untenable as there is no showing that said area was declared by law as a watershed reserve nor was it declared by the President as an environmentally critical area. The claim of the Province of Nueva Vizcaya is to be considered as environmentally critical. not being an environmentally critical area. 4. Solano. the issuance of an ECC is not required. an ECC is not required prior to project implementation for the abovementioned project. Neither is the installation of the cell site in Barangay Quirino. As a matter of course. It may be the main action or merely a provisional remedy for and as an incident in the main action.that the radiation emitted by cell site antennas is not hazardous to human health if the minimum safe distance is observed. process of proceeding whereby a party is ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act. the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction. Series of 2002 issued by the EMB-DENR listed the “Based Transceiver Station” as one of the telecommunications projects which are not covered by the EIS System. Nueva Vizcaya an environmentally critical project as it is not one of those covered or listed under Proclamation No. .