Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 399 views

    GMCR Inc. Vs Bell Telecommunications Phil Inc. 82 SCAD 205, 271 SCRA 790 (1997) - Camba

    Uploaded by

    geni_pearlc
    This document summarizes a court case between GMCR Inc. and Bell Telecommunications Philippines Inc. regarding BellTel's application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a telecommunications network. The key issue was whether the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) acts as a collegial body. The court ruled that yes, based on previous laws and orders, the NTC is a collegial body. It cannot be ruled solely by one commissioner, but rather decisions require approval from the collective commissioners. The court instructed the NTC to resolve BellTel's application and declared certain NTC circulars void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GMCR Inc. Vs Bell Telecommunications Phil Inc. 82 SCAD 205, 271 SCRA 790 (1997) - Camba

    Uploaded by

    geni_pearlc
    399 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case between GMCR Inc. and Bell Telecommunications Philippines Inc. regarding BellTel's application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a telecommunications network. The key issue was whether the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) acts as a collegial body. The court ruled that yes, based on previous laws and orders, the NTC is a collegial body. It cannot be ruled solely by one commissioner, but rather decisions require approval from the collective commissioners. The court instructed the NTC to resolve BellTel's application and declared certain NTC circulars void.

    Original Title

    (83) GMCR Inc. vs Bell Telecommunications Phil Inc. 82 SCAD 205, 271 SCRA 790 [1997] - Camba

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between GMCR Inc. and Bell Telecommunications Philippines Inc. regarding BellTel's application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a telecommunications network. The key issue was whether the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) acts as a collegial body. The court ruled that yes, based on previous laws and orders, the NTC is a collegial body. It cannot be ruled solely by one commissioner, but rather decisions require approval from the collective commissioners. The court instructed the NTC to resolve BellTel's application and declared certain NTC circulars void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    399 views2 pages

    GMCR Inc. Vs Bell Telecommunications Phil Inc. 82 SCAD 205, 271 SCRA 790 (1997) - Camba

    Uploaded by

    geni_pearlc
    This document summarizes a court case between GMCR Inc. and Bell Telecommunications Philippines Inc. regarding BellTel's application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate a telecommunications network. The key issue was whether the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) acts as a collegial body. The court ruled that yes, based on previous laws and orders, the NTC is a collegial body. It cannot be ruled solely by one commissioner, but rather decisions require approval from the collective commissioners. The court instructed the NTC to resolve BellTel's application and declared certain NTC circulars void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GMCR Inc. vs Bell Telecommunications Phil Inc.

    82 SCAD 205, 271 SCRA 790 [1997]

    Facts:
    Bell Telecommunications Philippines Inc. (BellTel)filed with the National
    Telecommunications Commission an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and
    Necessity to Procure (CPCNP) to install, operate, and maintain a nationwide integrated
    telecommunications services and to charge rates, and with further request for the issuance of
    Provisional Authority. Since BellTel was, at that time, an unfranchised applicant, it was excluded
    in the deliberations for service area assignments for local exchange carrier service. Only
    GMCR, Inc., Smart Communications, Inc., Isla Communications Co., Inc. and International
    Communications Corporation, among others, were beneficiaries of formal awards of service
    area assignments in 1994. Later, with the enactment of Republic Act No. 7692, BellTel was
    granted a congressional franchise to carry on the business of providing telecommunications
    services in and around the country. The following year, said respondent filed with NTC a second
    application for the issuance of CPCNP for its local and international interconnection under an
    integrated system. After presenting its pieces of evidence and cross-examined in the
    proceedings, BellTel later filed its Formal Offer of Evidence together with all the technical,
    financial and legal documents in support of its application. Pursuant to its rules, the application
    was referred to the Common Carriers Authorization Department for study and
    recommendation. Agreeing with the findings and recommendations of the CCAD, NTC Deputy
    Commissioners Fidelo Dumlao and Consuelo Perez adopted the same and expressly signified
    their approval of the Memorandum of the CCAD. The draft was initialed by Deputy
    Commissioners Fidelo Q. Dumlao and Consuelo Perez but was not signed by Commissioner
    Simeon Kintanar.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the NTC is a collegial body under Executive Order No. 546 

    Ruling:
    Yes. In the interim, the Solicitor General filed with the respondent appellate court a
    Manifestation In Lieu of Comment in which the Solicitor General took a legal position adverse to
    that of the NTC. The Solicitor General, after a close examination of the laws creating the NTC
    and its predecessors and a studious analysis of certain Department of Transportation and
    Communications (DOTC) orders, NTC circulars, and Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinions
    pertinent to the issue of collegiality of the NTC, made the following recommendations: 

    (a) declare respondent National Telecommunications Commission as a collegial body; 

    (b) restrain respondent Commissioner Simeon Kintanar from arrogating unto himself alone the
    powers of the said agency; 

    (c) order NTC, acting as a collegial body, to resolve petitioner Bell Telecoms application under
    NTC-94-229; 

    (d) declare NTC Memorandum Circulars 1-1-93 and 3-1-93 as void; [and] 
    (e) uphold the legality of DOTC Department Order 92-614. 

    You might also like