7 Radio Comm Vs NTC (Digest)

Radio Comm vs NTC
G.R. No. 66683. April 23, 1990

BIDIN, J:
Facts:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order seeking
to annul and set aside the order of the National Telecommunications Commission (hereinafter respondent
Commission) and to prohibit respondent Commission from taking cognizance of, and assuming jurisdiction
over the "Application for Approval of Rates for Digital Transmission Service Facilities" of the PLDT,
private respondent herein, for lack of jurisdiction.
Private respondent PLDT filed an application with respondent Commission for the Approval of Rates for
Digital Transmission Service Facilities. The respondent Commission provisionally approved and set the
case for hearing within the prescribed 30-day period allowed by law.
Later, the respondent Commission issued a notice of hearing. Herein petitioners except Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Corporation were not included in the list of affected parties. At the hearing,
petitioner PT & T Co., along with other petitioners which came to know of the pending petition through the
former, appeared and moved for some time within which to file an opposition or reply to said application.
Petitioners alleged that neither respondent Commission nor private respondent PLDT informed them of the
existence of this provisional authority.
Issue: Whether the respondent Commission gravely abused its discretion amounting to excess or lack of
jurisdiction in issuing a provisional authority in favor of PLDT, without prior notice to the petitioners.
Ruling:
NO. Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act (CA No. 146) provides for the fixing of rates, by the
Commission, which shall be imposed and observed by any public service, as follows:
"Sec. 16(c). To fix and determine individual and Joint rates, tolls, charges, classifications, or schedules
thereof, as well as commutation, mileage, kilometrage, and other special rates which shall be imposed,
observed and followed thereafter by any public service: Provided, That the Commission may, in its
discretion, approve rates proposed by public services provisionally and without necessity of any hearing;
but it shall call a hearing thereon within thirty days, thereafter, upon publication and notice to the concerns
operating in the territory affected: Provided, further That in case the public service equipment of an operator
is used principally or secondarily for the promotion of a private business shall be considered in relation
with the public service of such operator for the purpose of fixing the rates."
The Public Service Commission found that the application involved in the present petition is actually an
application for approval of rates for digital transmission service facilities which it may approve
provisionally and without the necessity of any notice and hearing as provided in the above-quoted provision
of law.
Well-settled is the rule that the Public Service Commission now is empowered to approve provisionally
rates of utilities without the necessity of a prior hearing (Republic v. Medina, 41 SCRA 643 [1971]). Under
the Public Service Act, as amended (CA No. 146), the Board of Communications then, now the NTC, can
fix a provisional amount for the subscriber's investment to be effective immediately, without hearing (par.
3 of Sec. 16, CA 146, as amended; Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. NTC, 131 SCRA 260 [1984]).
Further, the Public Service Act makes no distinction between initial or revised rates. These rates are
necessarily proposed merely, until the Commission approves them. Moreover, the Commission can hear
and approve revised rates without published notices or hearing. The reason is easily discerned from the fact
that provisional rates are by their nature temporary and subject to adjustment in conformity with the
definitive rates approved after final hearing and it as so stated in the case at bar, in the National
Telecommunications Commission's order of January 25, 1984.
The Commission did not grant the PLDT any authority to engage in any new communication service, but
merely approved provisionally PLDT's proposed revision of its then authorized schedule of rates for the
lease on availment by end-users of the digital full period leased lines or channels for data transmission
which said company acquired, installed, and presently maintain in serviceable condition, a relief well within
its power to grant. Undoubtedly, a public utility is entitled to a just compensation and a fair return upon the
value of its property while it is being used in public service.
As to the required notice, it is impossible for the respondent Commission to give personal notice to all
parties affected, not all of them being known to it. More than that, there is no dispute that the notice of
hearing was published and as admitted by petitioners, one of them received the notice which in turn
informed the others. In fact, the petitioners have timely opposed the petition in question, so that lack of
notice was deemed cured. Under the circumstances, the Commission may be deemed to have substantially
complied with the requirements.
The maximum rate fixed in a franchise which its holder is authorized to collect, is always subject to a
revision and regulation by the Public Service Commission (now NTC). For if such maximum rate is not
subject to alteration, the power of the Commission to review would be rendered nugatory, as it cannot be
said that the power to revise may be exercised only where the franchise does not impose a limitation.
Therefore, the authority of the Commission to issue ex parte a provisional permit to operate proposed public
service is not absolute but is based on the superior and imperative necessity of meeting an urgent public
need.
A doctrine long recognized is that where the law confines in an administrative office the power to determine
particular questions or matters upon the facts presented, the jurisdiction of such office shall prevail over the
courts. Hence, findings of administrative officials and agencies who have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality
if such findings are supported by substantial evidence (Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. v. Enage, 152 SCRA
80-81 [19871).
WHEREFORE, the petition is Dismissed for lack of merit and the assailed order of the National
Telecommunications Commission is Affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued on March 21, 1984
is Set Aside.
SO ORDERED.

7 Radio Comm Vs NTC (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 Radio Comm Vs NTC (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

7 Radio Comm Vs NTC (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radio Comm vs NTC

G.R. No. 66683. April 23, 1990

You might also like