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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 302 views

    GLOBE v. NTC

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    Globe refused Smart's request to interconnect their GSM networks for SMS services. Smart filed a complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which issued an order requiring both Globe and Smart to interconnect for SMS and declaring that they did not have authority to provide SMS without NTC approval. Globe challenged this order by filing a petition to nullify the order. The Supreme Court ruled that while the NTC has authority to regulate SMS as a value-added service, it could not legally require Globe to secure approval to provide SMS as it had not issued clear, applicable regulations on SMS in a fair manner. The NTC continues to have jurisdiction over SMS offerings but must promulgate necessary rules and regulations to properly govern new

    Copyright:

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

    GLOBE v. NTC

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    302 views2 pages
    Globe refused Smart's request to interconnect their GSM networks for SMS services. Smart filed a complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which issued an order requiring both Globe and Smart to interconnect for SMS and declaring that they did not have authority to provide SMS without NTC approval. Globe challenged this order by filing a petition to nullify the order. The Supreme Court ruled that while the NTC has authority to regulate SMS as a value-added service, it could not legally require Globe to secure approval to provide SMS as it had not issued clear, applicable regulations on SMS in a fair manner. The NTC continues to have jurisdiction over SMS offerings but must promulgate necessary rules and regulations to properly govern new

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    8. GLOBE v. NTC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Globe refused Smart's request to interconnect their GSM networks for SMS services. Smart filed a complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which issued an order requiring both Globe and Smart to interconnect for SMS and declaring that they did not have authority to provide SMS without NTC approval. Globe challenged this order by filing a petition to nullify the order. The Supreme Court ruled that while the NTC has authority to regulate SMS as a value-added service, it could not legally require Globe to secure approval to provide SMS as it had not issued clear, applicable regulations on SMS in a fair manner. The NTC continues to have jurisdiction over SMS offerings but must promulgate necessary rules and regulations to properly govern new

    Copyright:

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

    GLOBE v. NTC

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    Globe refused Smart's request to interconnect their GSM networks for SMS services. Smart filed a complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which issued an order requiring both Globe and Smart to interconnect for SMS and declaring that they did not have authority to provide SMS without NTC approval. Globe challenged this order by filing a petition to nullify the order. The Supreme Court ruled that while the NTC has authority to regulate SMS as a value-added service, it could not legally require Globe to secure approval to provide SMS as it had not issued clear, applicable regulations on SMS in a fair manner. The NTC continues to have jurisdiction over SMS offerings but must promulgate necessary rules and regulations to properly govern new

    Copyright:

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

    GLOBE v.

    ERC

    FACTS: On 4 June 1999, Smart filed a Complaint with public respondent National Telecommunications
    Commission praying that NTC order the immediate interconnection of Smarts and Globes GSM networks.
    Smart alleged that Globe, with evident bad faith and malice, refused to grant Smarts request for the
    interconnection of SMS.

    Globe filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss on 7 June 1999, interposing grounds that the Complaint
    was premature, Smarts failure to comply with the condition’s precedent required in Section 6 of NTC
    Memorandum Circular 9-7-93,19 and its omission of the mandatory Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.

    On 19 July 1999, NTC issued the Order now subject of the present petition.

    According to NTC Both Smart and Globe were equally blameworthy for their lack of cooperation in the
    submission of the documentation required for interconnection and for having unduly maneuvered the
    situation into the present impasse.

    NTC held that since SMS falls squarely within the definition of value-added (VAS) service or enhanced-
    service given in NTC Memorandum Circular No. 8-9-95 (MC No. 8-9-95) their implementation of
    SMS interconnection is mandatory. The NTC also declared that both Smart and Globe have been
    providing SMS without authority from it.

    Globe filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify and set aside the
    Order and to prohibit NTC from taking any further action in the case.

    Globe reiterated its previous arguments that the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to
    comply with conditions precedent and the non-forum shopping rule. They claimed that NTC acted without
    jurisdiction in declaring that it had no authority to render SMS, pointing out that the matter was not raised
    as an issue before it at all.

    They alleged that the Order is a patent nullity as it imposed an administrative penalty for an offense for
    which neither it nor Smart was sufficiently charged nor heard on in violation of their right to due process.

    The CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 31 Aug 1999. In its Memorandum, Globe called
    the attention of the CA in an earlier NTC decision regarding Islacom, holding that SMS is a deregulated
    special feature and does not require the prior approval of the NTC.

    ISSUE: Whether NTC may legally require Globe to secure NTC approval before it continues providing
    SMS.

    RULING: No. The Supreme Court held that The NTC may not legally require Globe to secure its approval
    for Globe to continue providing SMS. This does not imply though that NTC lacks authority to regulate
    SMS or to classify it as VAS.  However, the move should be implemented properly, through unequivocal
    regulations applicable to all entities that are similarly situated, and in an even-handed manner.

    This should not be interpreted, however, as removing SMS from the ambit of jurisdiction and review by
    the NTC. The NTC will continue to exercise, by way of its broad grant, jurisdiction over Globe and Smart’s
    SMS offerings, including questions of rates and customer complaints. Yet caution must be had. Much
    complication could have been avoided had the NTC adopted a proactive position, promulgating the
    necessary rules and regulations to cope up with the advent of the technologies it superintends.  With the
    persistent advent of new offerings in the telecommunications industry, the NTC’s role will become more
    crucial than at any time before.

    Furthermore, every party subject to administrative regulation deserves an opportunity to know, through
    reasonable regulations promulgated by the agency, of the objective standards that have to be met, a rule
    integral to due process, as it protects substantive rights.

    You might also like