PLDT vs. NTC and CELLCOM, Inc.

G. R. No. 88404
Oct. 18, 1990
FACTS:
Petitioner PLDT assailed two orders of public respondent National Telecommunications
Commission granting private respondent Express Telecommunications (ETCI) provisional
authority to install, operate and maintain a Cellular Mobile Telephone System in Metro Manila
now ETCI in accordance with specific conditions on the following grounds;
1. ETCI is not capacitated or qualified under its legislative franchise to operate a systemwide telephone or network of telephone service such as the one proposed in its
application;
2. ETCI lacks the facilities needed and indispensable to the successful operation of the
proposed cellular mobile telephone system;
3. PLDT has its pending application with NTC Case No 86-86, to install and operate a
Cellular Mobile Telephone System for domestic and international service not only in
Manila but also in the provinces and that under the prior operator or protection of
investment doctrine, PLDT has the priority preference in the operation of such service;
and
4. The provisional authority, if granted, will result in needless, uneconomical, and
harmful duplication, among others.
After evaluating the consideration sought by the PLDT, the NTC, maintained its ruling
that liberally construed, applicants franchise carries with it the privilege to operate and maintain
a cellular mobile telephone service. Subsequently, PLDT alleged essentially that the
interconnection ordered was in violation of due process and that the grant of provisional
authority was jurisdictionally and procedurally infirm. However, NTC denied the
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of PLDT is tenable.
HELD:
Petition is dismissed for lack of merit. There can be no question that the NTC is the
regulatory agency of the national government with jurisdiction over all telecommunications
entities. It is legally clothed with authority and given ample discretion to grant a provisional
permit or authority. In fact, NTC may, on its own initiative, grant such relief even in the absence

of a motion from an applicant. Rep. Act No. 2090 grants ETCI (formerly FACI) "the right and
privilege of constructing, installing, establishing and operating in the entire Philippines radio
stations for reception and transmission of messages on radio stations in the foreign and domestic
public fixed point-to-point and public base, aeronautical and land mobile stations, ... with the
corresponding relay stations for the reception and transmission of wireless messages on
radiotelegraphy and/or radiotelephony. A franchise is a property right and cannot be revoked or
forfeited without due process of law. The determination of the right to the exercise of a franchise,
or whether the right to enjoy such privilege has been forfeited by non-user, is more properly the
subject of the prerogative writ of quo warranto, the right to assert which, as a rule, belongs to the
State "upon complaint or otherwise" (Sections 1, 2 and 3, Rule 66, Rules of Court), 2 the reason
being that the abuse of a franchise is a public wrong and not a private injury. A forfeiture of a
franchise will have to be declared in a direct proceeding for the purpose brought by the State
because a franchise is granted by law and its unlawful exercise is primarily a concern of
Government.
Transfers of shares of a public utility corporation need only NTC approval, not
Congressional authorization. What transpired in ETCI were a series of transfers of shares starting
in 1964 until 1987. The approval of the NTC may be deemed to have been met when it
authorized the issuance of the provisional authority to ETCI. f. PLDT cannot justifiably refuse to
interconnect. Rep. Act No. 6849, or the Municipal Telephone Act of 1989, approved on 8
February 1990, mandates interconnection providing as it does that "all domestic
telecommunications carriers or utilities ... shall be interconnected to the public switch telephone
network." Such regulation of the use and ownership of telecommunications systems is in the
exercise of the plenary police power of the State for the promotion of the general welfare. The
1987 Constitution recognizes the existence of that power when it provides.

GMCR, Inc., Smart Telecoms, Inc., Internal Communication, Inc., Isla Com, vs. Bell
Telecom, et al.
G. R. No. 126496
April 30, 1997.
FACTS:
Bell Telecommunications (BellTel) filed before the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CPCN) to procure, install, operate and maintain Nationwide Integrated Telecommunications
Services (NITS) and a Provisional Authority (PA) to effect such. During such application,
BellTel has not been given a legislative franchise to engage in the telecoms service which made
in unable to participate in the deliberations for service area assignments for local exchange
carrier service (LEC) where the petitioners above participated in. Subsequently, RA 7692 was
enacted granting BellTel a congressional franchise.
On 12 July 1994, BellTel filed a second application for a certificate of public
convenience, proposing to install 2.6 million telephone lines in 10years and to provide a 100%
digital local exchange network (NTC Case94-229). It also moved for the withdrawal of the first
application, without prejudice, which was granted by the NTC. BellTels application (2nd ) was
opposed by various telecommunication companies. BellTels application was referred to the
Common Carriers Authorization Department (CCAD), which found BellTels proposal
technically feasible and BellTel to be financially capable. The two deputy commissioners of the
NTC signified their approval of the CCAD recommendation. The working draft was prepared by
the legal department, was initialed by the two deputy commissioners, but was not signed by NTC
Commissioner Simeon Kintanar. The petitioners questioned the validity of the PA because
according to them it is the prevailing policy and procedure in the NTC that the Commissioner
has the exclusive authority to sign, validate and promulgate any and all orders, resolutions and
decisions of the NTC and only his vote counts.
BellTel filed two motions to resolve the application and the issuance of the PA but the
NTC did not act on it. In that relation the petitioners filed an Opposition. Commissioner Kintanar
issued an Order setting said motions for hearing but did not resolve said motions. However, no
hearing was conducted and it was rescheduled.

BellTel filed a motion to promulgate, after previously filing two urgentex-parte motion to
resolve application, which was not acted upon by the NTC. On 4 July 1995, the NTC denied the
motion in an order signed solely by Commissioner Kintanar. On 17 July 1995, BellTel filed a
petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition against NTC before the Supreme Court. The
Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Paragraph 1, Section 9 of BP 129.
The Court of Appeals granted BellTels position. Hence, the petitions for review by the opposing
telecommunication companies and Commissioner Kintanar.
ISSUE:
Whether the vote of the Chairman of the Commission is sufficient to legally render an
NTC order, resolution or decision.
HELD:
Having been organized under Executive Order 146 as a three-man commission, the NTC
is a collegial body and was a collegial body even during the time it was acting as a one-man
regime. NTC is a collegial body requiring a majority vote out of three members of the
commission in order to validly decides a case or any incident therein. The vote alone of the
chairman of the Commission, absent the required concurring vote coming from the rest of the
membership of the commission to at least arrive at a majority decision, is not sufficient to legally
render an NTC order, resolution or decision. EO 546, which created the NTC under the
Ministries of Public Works and of Transportation and Communication, does not specifically
provide that the NTC is not a collegiate body nor did it mention that NTC should meet En Banc
in deciding its case orquasi-judicial functions. However, this does not militate against the
collegial nature of the NTC because the Rules of Procedure and Practice applied by the NTC in
its proceedings states that in cases heard by the Board En Banc, the resolution or order should be
reached with the concurrence of at least two regular members after deliberation and consultation.
NTC Circulars 1-1-93, 3-1-93 and the Order of Kintanar, declaring the NTC as a single entity or
non-collegial entity, are contrary to law and thus are null and void.

Arellano University School of Law

CASE DIGESTS
IN
TELECOMS LAW

Submitted to: Atty. Gozon.

Submitted by: Richard q. Ganibe Jr.
Date Submitted: May 24, 2015