THIRDDIVISION

ABSCBNBROADCASTINGG.R.Nos.17576970
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,Present:
YnaresSantiago,J.(Chairperson),
versusAustriaMartinez,
ChicoNazario,
Nachura,and
LeonardoDeCastro,*JJ.
PHILIPPINEMULTIMEDIASYSTEM,
INC.,CESARG.REYES,FRANCIS
CHUA(ANGBIAO),MANUELF.
ABELLADA,RAULB.DEMESA,Promulgated:
ANDALOYSIUSM.COLAYCO,
Respondents.January19,2009

xx

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

[1]
[2]
Thispetitionforreviewoncertiorari assailstheJuly12,2006Decision oftheCourtofAppeals
in CAG.R. SP Nos. 88092 and 90762, which affirmed the December 20, 2004 Decision of the
DirectorGeneraloftheIntellectualPropertyOffice(IPO)inAppealNo.1020040002.Alsoassailed
[3]
istheDecember11,2006Resolution denyingthemotionforreconsideration.
PetitionerABSCBNBroadcastingCorporation(ABSCBN)islicensedunderthelawsofthe
[4]
RepublicofthePhilippinestoengageintelevisionandradiobroadcasting. Itbroadcaststelevision
programs by wireless means to Metro Manila and nearby provinces, and by satellite to provincial
stationsthroughChannel2onVeryHighFrequency(VHF)andChannel23onUltraHighFrequency
(UHF).TheprogramsairedoverChannels2and23areeitherproducedbyABSCBNorpurchased
fromorlicensedbyotherproducers.
ABSCBN also owns regional television stations which pattern their programming in
accordancewithperceiveddemandsoftheregion.Thus,televisionprogramsshowninMetroManila
andnearbyprovincesarenotnecessarilyshowninotherprovinces.


Respondent Philippine MultiMedia System, Inc. (PMSI) is the operator of Dream
Broadcasting System. It delivers digital directtohome (DTH) television via satellite to its
subscribers all over the Philippines. Herein individual respondents, Cesar G. Reyes, Francis Chua,
ManuelF.Abellada,RaulB.DeMesa,andAloysiusM.Colayco,aremembersofPMSIsBoardof
Directors.

[5]
PMSIwasgrantedalegislativefranchiseunderRepublicActNo.8630 onMay7,1998and
was given a Provisional Authority by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) on
February 1, 2000 to install, operate and maintain a nationwide DTH satellite service. When it
commencedoperations,itofferedaspartofitsprogramlineupABSCBNChannels2and23,NBN,
Channel4,ABCChannel5,GMAChannel7,RPNChannel9,andIBCChannel13,togetherwith
otherpaidpremiumprogramchannels.

[6]
However, on April 25, 2001, ABSCBN demanded for PMSI to cease and desist from
[7]
rebroadcastingChannels2and23.OnApril27,2001, PMSIrepliedthattherebroadcastingwasin
accordancewiththeauthoritygranteditbyNTCanditsobligationunderNTCMemorandumCircular
[8]
No. 40888, Section 6.2 of which requires all cable television system operators operating in a
communitywithinGradeAorBcontourstocarrythetelevisionsignalsoftheauthorizedtelevision
[9]
broadcaststations.

Thereafter,negotiationsensuedbetweenthepartiesinanefforttoreachasettlementhowever,
thenegotiationswereterminatedonApril4,2002byABSCBNallegedlyduetoPMSIsinabilityto
ensure the prevention of illegal retransmission and further rebroadcast of its signals, as well as the
[10]
adverseeffectoftherebroadcastsonthebusinessoperationsofitsregionaltelevisionstations.

OnMay13,2002,ABSCBNfiledwiththeIPOacomplaintforViolationofLawsInvolving
Property Rights, with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary Injunction, which was docketed as IPV No. 1020020004. It alleged that PMSIs
unauthorizedrebroadcastingofChannels2and23infringedonitsbroadcastingrightsandcopyright.

OnJuly2,2002,theBureauofLegalAffairs(BLA)oftheIPOgrantedABSCBNsapplication
foratemporaryrestrainingorder.OnJuly12,2002,PMSIsuspendeditsretransmissionofChannels2

and23andlikewisefiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeals,whichwasdocketedas
CAG.R.SPNo.71597.

Subsequently, PMSI filed with the BLA a Manifestation reiterating that it is subject to the
mustcarryruleunderMemorandumCircularNo.040888.ItalsosubmittedaletterdatedDecember
20,2002ofthenNTCCommissionerArmiJaneR.BorjetoPMSIstatingasfollows:

ThisreferstoyourletterdatedDecember16,2002requestingforregulatoryguidancefromthis
CommissioninconnectionwiththeapplicationandcoverageofNTCMemorandumCircularNo.408
88,particularlySection6thereof,onmandatorycarriageoftelevisionbroadcastsignals,tothedirect
tohome(DTH)paytelevisionservicesofPhilippineMultiMediaSystem,Inc.(PMSI).

Preliminarily,bothDTHpaytelevisionandcabletelevisionservicesarebroadcastservices,the
onlydifferencebeingthemediumofdeliveringsuchservices(i.e.theformerbysatelliteandthelatter
bycable).Bothcancarrybroadcastsignalstotheremoteareas,thusenrichingthelivesoftheresidents
thereofthroughthedisseminationofsocial,economic,educationalinformationandculturalprograms.

The DTH pay television services of PMSI is equipped to provide nationwide DTH satellite
services.Concededly, PMSIs DTH pay television services covers very much wider areas in terms of
carriage of broadcast signals, including areas not reachable by cable television services thereby
providingabettermediumofdisseminationofinformationtothepublic.

InviewoftheforegoingandthespiritandintentofNTCmemorandumCircularNo.408
88,particularlysection6thereof,onmandatorycarriageoftelevisionbroadcastsignals,DTHpay
televisionservicesshouldbedeemedcoveredbysuchNTCMemorandumCircular.

[11]
Foryourguidance.(Emphasisadded)

OnAugust26,2003,PMSIfiledanotherManifestationwiththeBLAthatitreceivedaletter
dated July 24, 2003 from the NTC enjoining strict and immediate compliance with the mustcarry
ruleunderMemorandumCircularNo.040888,towit:

DearMr.Abellada:

LastJuly22,2003,theNationalTelecommunicationsCommission(NTC)receivedaletterdatedJuly
17, 2003 from President/COO Rene Q. Bello of the International Broadcasting Corporation (IBC
Channel 13) complaining that your company, Dream Broadcasting System, Inc., has cutoff, without
any notice or explanation whatsoever, to air the programs of IBC13, a freetoair television, to the
detrimentofthepublic.

Weweretoldthat,untilnow,thishasbeengoingon.

Pleasebeadvisedthatasadirectbroadcastsatelliteoperator,operatingadirecttohome(DTH)
broadcastingsystem,withaprovisionalauthority(PA)fromtheNTC,yourcompany,alongwith
cable television operators, are mandated to strictly comply with the existing policy of NTC on
mandatorycarriageoftelevisionbroadcastsignalsasprovidedunderMemorandumCircularNo.
040888,alsoknownastheRevisedRulesandRegulationsGoverningCableTelevisionSystemin
thePhilippines.

ThismandatorycoverageprovisionunderSection6.2ofsaidMemorandumCircular,requiresall
cabletelevisionsystemoperators,operatinginacommunitywithintheGradeAorBcontoursto
mustcarry the television signals of the authorized television broadcast stations, one of which is
IBC13. Said directive equally applies to your company as the circular was issued to give
consumersandthepublicawideraccesstomoresourcesofnews,information,entertainmentand
otherprograms/contents.

ThisCommission,asthegoverningagencyvestedbylawswiththejurisdiction,supervisionandcontrol
over all public services, which includes direct broadcast satellite operators, and taking into
considerationtheparamountinterestofthepublicingeneral,herebydirectsyoutoimmediatelyrestore
the signal of IBC13 in your network programs, pursuant to existing circulars and regulations of the
Commission.

[12]
Forstrictcompliance.(Emphasisadded)

Meanwhile, on October 10, 2003, the NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 10102003,
entitled Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Community Antenna/Cable Television
(CATV)andDirectBroadcastSatellite(DBS)ServicestoPromoteCompetitionintheSector.Article
6,Section8thereofstates:

Asageneralrule,thereception,distributionand/ortransmissionbyanyCATV/DBSoperatorof
anytelevisionsignalswithoutanyagreementwithorauthorizationfromprogram/contentprovidersare
prohibited.

OnwhetherMemorandumCircularNo.10102003amendedMemorandumCircularNo.04
0888,theNTCexplainedtoPMSIinaletterdatedNovember3,2003that:

To address your query on whether or not the provisions of MC 10102003 would have the effect of
amendingtheprovisionsofMC40888onmandatorycarriageoftelevisionsignals,theanswerisin
thenegative.

xxxx

TheCommissionmaintainsthat,MC40888remainsvalid,subsistingandenforceable.

Pleasebeadvised,therefore,thatasdulylicenseddirecttohomesatellitetelevisionserviceprovider
authorizedbythisCommission,yourcompanycontinuestobeboundbytheguidelinesprovided
forunderMC040888,specificallyyourobligationunderitsmandatorycarriageprovisions,in
additiontoyourobligationsunderMC10102003.(Emphasisadded)

[13]
Pleasebeguidedaccordingly.

[14]
On December 22, 2003, the BLA rendered a decision
finding that PMSI infringed the
broadcastingrightsandcopyrightofABSCBNandorderingittopermanentlyceaseanddesistfrom
rebroadcastingChannels2and23.

OnFebruary6,2004,PMSIfiledanappealwiththeOfficeoftheDirectorGeneraloftheIPO
whichwasdocketedasAppealNo.1020040002.OnDecember23,2004,italsofiledwiththeCourt
ofAppealsaMotiontoWithdrawPetitionAlternatively,MemorandumofthePetitionforCertiorari
inCAG.R.SPNo.71597,whichwasgrantedinaresolutiondatedFebruary17,2005.

[15]
On December 20, 2004, the DirectorGeneral of the IPO rendered a decision
in favor of
PMSI,thedispositiveportionofwhichstates:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,

Decision No. 200301 dated 22 December 2003 of the Director of Bureau of Legal Affairs is hereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDE.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs for
appropriate action, and the records be returned to her for proper disposition. The Documentation,
InformationandTechnologyTransferBureauisalsogivenacopyforlibraryandreferencepurposes.

[16]
SOORDERED.

Thus,ABSCBNfiledapetitionforreviewwithprayerforissuanceofatemporaryrestraining
orderandwritofpreliminaryinjunctionwiththeCourtofAppeals,whichwasdocketedasCAG.R.
SPNo.88092.

OnJuly18,2005,theCourtofAppealsissuedatemporaryrestrainingorder.Thereafter,ABS
CBN filed a petition for contempt against PMSI for continuing to rebroadcast Channels 2 and 23
despitetherestrainingorder.ThecasewasdocketedasCAG.R.SPNo.90762.

OnNovember14,2005,theCourtofAppealsorderedtheconsolidationofCAG.R.SPNos.
88092and90762.

IntheassailedDecisiondatedJuly12,2006,theCourtofAppealssustainedthefindingsofthe
[17]
DirectorGeneraloftheIPOanddismissedbothpetitionsfiledbyABSCBN.

ABSCBNsmotionforreconsiderationwasdenied,hence,thispetition.

ABSCBN contends that PMSIs unauthorized rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is an

infringementofitsbroadcastingrightsandcopyrightundertheIntellectualPropertyCode(IPCode)
[18]
that Memorandum Circular No. 040888 excludes DTH satellite television operators that the

[19]
Court of Appeals interpretation of the mustcarry rule violates Section 9 of Article III
of the
Constitution because it allows the taking of property for public use without payment of just
compensation that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for contempt docketed as
CAG.R.SPNo.90762withoutrequiringrespondentstofilecomment.

Respondents, on the other hand, argue that PMSIs rebroadcasting of Channels 2 and 23 is
sanctionedbyMemorandumCircularNo.040888thatthemustcarryruleundertheMemorandum
CircularisavalidexerciseofpolicepowerandthattheCourtofAppealscorrectlydismissedCA
G.R.SPNo.90762sinceitfoundnoneedtoexerciseitspowerofcontempt.

After a careful review of the facts and records of this case, we affirm the findings of the
DirectorGeneraloftheIPOandtheCourtofAppeals.

There is no merit in ABSCBNs contention that PMSI violated its broadcasters rights under
Section211oftheIPCodewhichprovidesinpart:

ChapterXIV
BROADCASTINGORGANIZATIONS

Sec.211.ScopeofRight.SubjecttotheprovisionsofSection212,broadcastingorganizationsshall
enjoytheexclusiverighttocarryout,authorizeorpreventanyofthefollowingacts:

211.1.Therebroadcastingoftheirbroadcasts

xxxx

NeitherisPMSIguiltyofinfringementofABSCBNscopyrightunderSection177oftheIP
Codewhichstatesthatcopyrightoreconomicrightsshallconsistoftheexclusiverighttocarryout,
authorizeorpreventthepublicperformanceofthework(Section177.6),andothercommunicationto
[20]
thepublicofthework(Section177.7).

Section202.7oftheIPCodedefinesbroadcastingasthetransmissionbywirelessmeansfor
the public reception of sounds or of images or of representations thereof such transmission by
satellite is also broadcasting where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the
broadcastingorganizationorwithitsconsent.

Ontheotherhand,rebroadcastingasdefinedinArticle3(g)oftheInternationalConvention
for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations,
otherwise known as the 1961 Rome Convention, of which the Republic of the Philippines is a

[21]
signatory,
isthesimultaneousbroadcastingbyonebroadcastingorganizationofthebroadcastof
anotherbroadcastingorganization.

The DirectorGeneral of the IPO correctly found that PMSI is not engaged in rebroadcasting
andthuscannotbeconsideredtohaveinfringedABSCBNsbroadcastingrightsandcopyright,thus:

That the Appellants [herein respondent PMSI] subscribers are able to view Appellees [herein
petitionerABSCBN]programs(Channels2and23)atthesametimethatthelatterisbroadcastingthe
sameisundisputed.Thequestionhoweveris,wouldtheAppellantindoingsobeconsideredengagedin
broadcasting.Section202.7oftheIPCodestatesthatbroadcastingmeans

the transmission by wireless means for the public reception of sounds or of

imagesorofrepresentationsthereofsuchtransmissionbysatelliteisalsobroadcasting
where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the broadcasting
organizationorwithitsconsent.

Section202.7oftheIPCode,thus,providestwoinstanceswhereinthereisbroadcasting,towit:

1. Thetransmissionbywirelessmeansforthepublicreceptionofsoundsorofimagesorof
representationsthereofand

2. The transmission by satellite for the public reception of sounds or of images or of

representations thereof where the means for decrypting are provided to the public by the
broadcastingorganizationorwithitsconsent.

It is under the second category that Appellants DTH satellite television service must be
examinedsinceitissatellitebased.Theelementsofsuchcategoryareasfollows:

1.Thereistransmissionofsoundsorimagesorofrepresentationsthereof

2.Thetransmissionisthroughsatellite

3.Thetransmissionisforpublicreceptionand

4.Themeansfordecryptingareprovidedtothepublicbythebroadcastingorganizationorwithits
consent.

It is only the presence of all the above elements can a determination that the DTH is
broadcastingandconsequently,rebroadcastingAppelleessignalsinviolationofSections211and177of
theIPCode,maybearrivedat.

Accordingly,thisOfficeisoftheviewthatthetransmissioncontemplatedunderSection202.7
oftheIPCodepresupposesthattheoriginofthesignalsisthebroadcaster.Hence, a program that is
broadcastedisattributedtothebroadcaster.Inthesamemanner,therebroadcastedprogramisattributed
totherebroadcaster.

Inthecaseathand,Appellantisnottheoriginnordoesitclaimtobetheoriginoftheprograms
broadcasted by the Appellee.Appellant did not make and transmit on its own but merely carried the
existingsignalsoftheAppellee.WhenAppellantssubscribersviewAppelleesprogramsinChannels2
and23,theyknowthattheoriginthereofwastheAppellee.

Aptly,itisimperativetodiscernthenatureofbroadcasting.Whenabroadcastertransmits,the
signalsarescatteredordispersedintheair.Anybodymaypickupthesesignals.Thereisnorestriction

astoitsnumber,typeorclassofrecipients.Toreceivethesignals,oneisnotrequiredtosubscribeorto
payanyfee.Oneonlyhastohaveareceiver,andincaseoftelevisionsignals,atelevisionset,andto
tunein to the right channel/frequency. The definition of broadcasting, wherein it is required that the
transmission is wireless, all the more supports this discussion. Apparently, the undiscriminating
dispersalofsignalsintheairispossibleonlythroughwirelessmeans.Theuseofwireintransmitting
signals, such as cable television, limits the recipients to those who are connected. Unlike wireless
transmissions, in wirebased transmissions, it is not enough that one wants to be connected and
possesses the equipment. The service provider, such as cable television companies may choose its
subscribers.

The only limitation to such dispersal of signals in the air is the technical capacity of the
transmitters and other equipment employed by the broadcaster.While the broadcaster may use a less
powerful transmitter to limit its coverage, this is merely a business strategy or decision and not an
inherentlimitationwhentransmissionisthroughcable.

Accordingly,thenatureofbroadcastingistoscatterthesignalsinitswidestareaofcoverageas
possible.Onthisscore,itmaybesaidthatmakingpublicmeansthataccessibilityisundiscriminatingas
longasit[is]withintherangeofthetransmitterandequipmentofthebroadcaster.That the medium
throughwhichtheAppellantcarriestheAppelleessignal,thatisviasatellite,doesnotdiminishthefact
thatitoperatesandfunctionsasacabletelevision.ItremainsthattheAppellantstransmissionofsignals
viaitsDTHsatellitetelevisionservicecannotbeconsideredwithinthepurviewofbroadcasting.xxx

xxxx

This Office also finds no evidence on record showing that the Appellant has provided
decryptingmeanstothepublicindiscriminately.Consideringthenatureofthiscase,whichispunitive
infact,theburdenofprovingtheexistenceoftheelementsconstitutingtheactspunishablerestsonthe
shoulderofthecomplainant.

Accordingly,thisOfficefindsthatthereisnorebroadcastingonthepartoftheAppellantofthe
[22]
AppelleesprogramsonChannels2and23,asdefinedundertheRomeConvention.

Under the Rome Convention, rebroadcasting is the simultaneous broadcasting by one

broadcasting organization of the broadcast of another broadcasting organization. The Working
[23]
Paper
prepared by the Secretariat of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights
definesbroadcastingorganizationsasentitiesthattakethefinancialandeditorialresponsibilityforthe
[24]
selectionandarrangementof,andinvestmentin,thetransmittedcontent.
Evidently,PMSIwould
not qualify as a broadcasting organization because it does not have the aforementioned
responsibilitiesimposeduponbroadcastingorganizations,suchasABSCBN.

ABSCBNcreatesandtransmitsitsownsignalsPMSImerelycarriessuchsignalswhichthe
viewersreceiveinitsunalteredform.PMSIdoesnotproduce,select,ordeterminetheprogramstobe
shown in Channels 2 and 23. Likewise, it does not pass itself off as the origin or author of such
programs. Insofar as Channels 2 and 23 are concerned, PMSI merely retransmits the same in
accordancewithMemorandumCircular040888.With regard to its premium channels, it buys the
channelsfromcontentprovidersandtransmitsonanasisbasistoitsviewers.Clearly,PMSIdoesnot

perform the functions of a broadcasting organization thus, it cannot be said that it is engaged in
rebroadcastingChannels2and23.

The DirectorGeneral of the IPO and the Court of Appeals also correctly found that PMSIs
services are similar to a cable television system because the services it renders fall under cable
retransmission,asdescribedintheWorkingPaper,towit:

(G)CableRetransmission

47.Whenaradioortelevisionprogramisbeingbroadcast,itcanberetransmittedtonewaudiencesby
means of cable or wire. In the early days of cable television, it was mainly used to improve signal
reception, particularly in socalled shadow zones, or to distribute the signals in large buildings or
buildingcomplexes.Withimprovementsintechnology,cableoperatorsnowoftenreceivesignalsfrom
satellitesbeforeretransmittingtheminanunalteredformtotheirsubscribersthroughcable.

48. In principle, cable retransmission can be either simultaneous with the broadcast overtheair or
delayed(deferredtransmission)onthebasisofafixationorareproductionofafixation.Furthermore,
theymightbeunalteredoraltered,forexamplethroughreplacementofcommercials,etc.In general,
however, the term retransmission seems to be reserved for such transmissions which are both
simultaneousandunaltered.

49. The Rome Convention does not grant rights against unauthorized cable retransmission.
Without such a right, cable operators can retransmit both domestic and foreign over the air
broadcasts simultaneously to their subscribers without permission from the broadcasting
[25]
organizations or other rightholders and without obligation to pay remuneration.
(Emphasis
added)

Thus, while the Rome Convention gives broadcasting organizations the right to authorize or
prohibit the rebroadcasting of its broadcast, however, this protection does not extend to cable
retransmission.TheretransmissionofABSCBNssignalsbyPMSIwhichfunctionsessentiallyasa
cable television does not therefore constitute rebroadcasting in violation of the formers intellectual
propertyrightsundertheIPCode.

Itmustbeemphasizedthatthelawoncopyrightisnotabsolute.TheIPCodeprovidesthat:

Sec.184.LimitationsonCopyright.

184.1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following acts shall not constitute
infringementofcopyright:

xxxx
(h) The use made of a work by or under the direction or control of the Government, by the
NationalLibraryorbyeducational,scientificorprofessionalinstitutionswheresuchuseisinthepublic
interestandiscompatiblewithfairuse

ThecarriageofABSCBNssignalsbyvirtueofthemustcarryruleinMemorandumCircular
No.040888isunderthedirectionandcontrolofthegovernmentthoughtheNTCwhichisvested
with exclusive jurisdiction to supervise, regulate and control telecommunications and broadcast
[26]
services/facilities in the Philippines.
The imposition of the mustcarry rule is within the NTCs
powertopromulgaterulesandregulations,aspublicsafetyandinterestmayrequire,toencouragea
largerandmoreeffectiveuseofcommunications,radioandtelevisionbroadcastingfacilities,andto
maintain effective competition among private entities in these activities whenever the Commission
[27]
findsitreasonablyfeasible.
AscorrectlyobservedbytheDirectorGeneraloftheIPO:

Accordingly,theMustCarryRuleunderNTCCircularNo.40888fallsundertheforegoingcategory
of limitations on copyright.This Office agrees with the Appellant [herein respondent PMSI] that the
MustCarryRuleisinconsonancewiththeprinciplesandobjectivesunderlyingExecutiveOrderNo.
[28]
436,
towit:

TheFilipinopeoplemustbegivenwideraccesstomoresourcesofnews,information,
education, sports event and entertainment programs other than those provided for by
massmediaandaffordedtelevisionprogramstoattainawellinformed,wellversedand
culturallyrefinedcitizenryandenhancetheirsocioeconomicgrowth:

WHEREAS, cable television (CATV) systems could support or supplement the

services provided by television broadcast facilities, local and overseas, as the national
[29]
informationhighwaytothecountryside.

TheCourtofAppealslikewisecorrectlyobservedthat:

[T]heveryintentandspiritoftheNTCCircularwillpreventasituationwherebystationownersanda
few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to
communicateonlytheirownviewsonpublicissues,people,andtopermitontheaironlythosewith
whom they agreed contrary to the state policy that the (franchise) grantee like the petitioner, private
respondent and other TV station owners, shall provide at all times sound and balanced programming
andassistinthefunctionsofpublicinformationandeducation.

Thisisforthefirsttimethatwehaveastructurethatworkstoaccomplishexplicitstatepolicygoals.
[30]

Indeed,intellectualpropertyprotectionismerelyameanstowardstheendofmakingsociety
benefit from the creation of its men and women of talent and genius. This is the essence of
intellectualpropertylaws,anditexplainswhycertainproductsofingenuitythatareconcealedfrom
thepublicareoutsidethepaleofprotectionaffordedbythelaw.Italsoexplainswhytheauthororthe
[31]
creatorenjoysnomorerightsthanareconsistentwithpublicwelfare.

Further, as correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the mustcarry rule as well as the
legislative franchises granted to both ABSCBN and PMSI are in consonance with state policies
[32]
[33]
[34]
enshrined in the Constitution, specifically Sections 9,
17,
and 24
of Article II on the
[35]
DeclarationofPrinciplesandStatePolicies.

ABSCBN was granted a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 7966, Section 1 of
which authorizes it to construct, operate and maintain, for commercial purposes and in the public
interest,televisionandradiobroadcastinginandthroughoutthePhilippinesxxx.Section4thereof
mandatesthatitshallprovideadequatepublicservicetimetoenablethegovernment,throughthesaid
broadcastingstations,toreachthepopulationonimportantpublicissuesprovideatalltimessound
andbalancedprogrammingpromotepublicparticipationsuchasincommunityprogrammingassist
inthefunctionsofpublicinformationandeducationxxx.

PMSIwaslikewisegrantedalegislativefranchiseunderRepublicActNo.8630,Section4of
which similarly states that it shall provide adequate public service time to enable the government,
throughthesaidbroadcastingstations,toreachthepopulationonimportantpublicissuesprovideat
all times sound and balanced programming promote public participation such as in community
programmingassistinthefunctionsofpublicinformationandeducationxxx.Section5,paragraph
2ofthesamelawprovidesthattheradiospectrumisafiniteresourcethatisapartofthenational
patrimony and the use thereof is a privilege conferred upon the grantee by the State and may be
withdrawnanytime,afterdueprocess.

[36]
In Telecom. & Broadcast Attys. of the Phils., Inc. v. COMELEC,
the Court held that a
franchiseisamereprivilegewhichmaybereasonablyburdenedwithsomeformofpublicservice.
Thus:

All broadcasting, whether by radio or by television stations, is licensed by the government. Airwave
frequencies have to be allocated as there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there are
frequencies to assign. A franchise is thus a privilege subject, among other things, to amendment by
Congressinaccordancewiththeconstitutionalprovisionthatanysuchfranchiseorrightgranted...
shallbesubjecttoamendment,alterationorrepealbytheCongresswhenthecommongoodsorequires.

xxxx

Indeed, provisions for COMELEC Time have been made by amendment of the franchises of
radioandtelevisionbroadcaststationsand,untilthepresentcasewasbrought,suchprovisionshadnot
been thought of as taking property without just compensation. Art. XII, 11 of the Constitution
authorizestheamendmentoffranchisesforthecommongood.Whatbettermeasurecanbeconceived
forthecommongoodthanoneforfreeairtimeforthebenefitnotonlyofcandidatesbutevenmoreof

thepublic,particularlythevoters,sothattheywillbefullyinformedoftheissuesinanelection?[I]tis
therightoftheviewersandlisteners,nottherightofthebroadcasters,whichisparamount.

Norindeedcantherebeanyconstitutionalobjectiontotherequirementthatbroadcaststations
give free air time. Even in the United States, there are responsible scholars who believe that
governmentcontrolsonbroadcastmediacanconstitutionallybeinstitutedtoensurediversityofviews
and attention to public affairs to further the system of free expression. For this purpose, broadcast
stations may be required to give free air time to candidates in an election. Thus, Professor Cass R.
Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, in urging reforms in regulations affecting the
broadcastindustry,writes:

xxxx

Intruth,radioandtelevisionbroadcastingcompanies,whicharegivenfranchises,donotown
the airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals and images. They are
merelygiventhetemporaryprivilegeofusingthem.Sinceafranchiseisamereprivilege,theexercise
of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form of

[37]

publicservice.xxx

There is likewise no merit to ABSCBNs claim that PMSIs carriage of its signals is for a
commercial purpose that its being the countrys top broadcasting company, the availability of its
[38]
signalsallegedlyenhancesPMSIsattractivenesstopotentialcustomers
orthattheunauthorized
carriage of its signals by PMSI has created competition between its Metro Manila and regional
stations.

ABSCBNpresentednosubstantialevidencetoprovethatPMSIcarrieditssignalsforprofit
orthatsuchcarriageadverselyaffectedthebusinessoperationsofitsregionalstations.Exceptforthe
[39]
testimonies of its witnesses,
no studies, statistical data or information have been submitted in
evidence.

Administrative charges cannot be based on mere speculation or conjecture. The complainant

[40]
has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.
Mere
[41]
allegationisnotevidence,andisnotequivalenttoproof.

AnyoneinthecountrywhoownsatelevisionsetandantennacanreceiveABSCBNssignals
for free. Other broadcasting organizations with freetoair signals such as GMA7, RPN9,ABC5,
[42]
andIBC13canlikewisebeaccessedforfree.Nopaymentisrequiredtoviewthesaidchannels
because these broadcasting networks do not generate revenue from subscription from their viewers
butfromairtimerevenuefromcontractswithcommercialadvertisersandproducers,aswellasfrom
directsales.


Incontrast,cableandDTHtelevisionearnrevenuesfromviewersubscription.In the case of
PMSI, it offers its customers premium paid channels from content providers like Star Movies, Star
World,JackTV,andAXN,amongothers,thusallowingitscustomerstogobeyondthelimitsofFree
[43]
TV and Cable TV.
It does not advertise itself as a local channel carrier because these local
channelscanbeviewedwithorwithoutDTHtelevision.

Relevantly, PMSIs carriage of Channels 2 and 23 is material in arriving at the ratings and
audience share of ABSCBN and its programs. These ratings help commercial advertisers and
producers decide whether to buy airtime from the network. Thus, the mustcarry rule is actually
advantageoustothebroadcastingnetworksbecauseitprovidesthemwithincreasedviewershipwhich
attractscommercialadvertisersandproducers.

On the other hand, the carriage of freetoair signals imposes a burden to cable and DTH
television providers such as PMSI. PMSI uses none of ABSCBNs resources or equipment and
[44]
carries the signals and shoulders the costs without any recourse of charging.
Moreover, such
carriage of signals takes up channel space which can otherwise be utilized for other premium paid
channels.

ThereisnomerittoABSCBNsargumentthatPMSIscarriageofChannels2and23resultedin
competitionbetweenitsMetroManilaandregionalstations.ABSCBNisfreetodecidetopatternits
regional programming in accordance with perceived demands of the region however, it cannot
impose this kind of programming on the regional viewers who are also entitled to the freetoair
channels. It must be emphasized that, as a national broadcasting organization, one of ABSCBNs
responsibilitiesistoscatteritssignalstothewidestareaofcoverageaspossible.Thatitshouldlimit
its signal reach for the sole purpose of gaining profit for its regional stations undermines public
interestanddeprivestheviewersoftheirrighttoaccesstoinformation.

Indeed,televisionisabusinesshowever,thewelfareofthepeoplemustnotbesacrificedinthe
pursuit of profit. The right of the viewers and listeners to the most diverse choice of programs
[45]
availableisparamount.
TheDirectorGeneralcorrectlyobserved,thus:

The MustCarry Rule favors both broadcasting organizations and the public.It prevents cable
televisioncompaniesfromexcludingbroadcastingorganizationespeciallyinthoseplacesnotreached
bysignal.Also,therulepreventscabletelevisioncompaniesfromdeprivingviewersinfarflungareas
theenjoymentofprogramsavailabletocityviewers.Infact,thisOfficefindstherulemoreburdensome
onthepartofthecabletelevisioncompanies.Thelattercarriesthetelevisionsignalsandshouldersthe

costs without any recourse of charging. On the other hand, the signals that are carried by cable
television companies are dispersed and scattered by the television stations and anybody with a
televisionsetisfreetopickthemup.

Withitsenormousresourcesandvauntedtechnologicalcapabilities,Appellees[hereinpetitionerABS
CBN]broadcastsignalscanreachalmosteverycornerofthearchipelago.Thatinspiteofsuchcapacity,
it chooses to maintain regional stations, is a business decision. That the MustCarry Rule adversely
affectstheprofitabilityofmaintainingsuch regional stations since there will be competition between
themanditsMetroManilastationisspeculativeandanattempttoextrapolatetheeffectsoftherule.As
discussedabove,AppellantsDTHsatellitetelevisionservicesisoflimitedsubscription.Therewasnot
evenashowingonpartoftheAppelleethenumberofAppellantssubscribersinoneregionascompared
to nonsubscribing television owners. In any event, if this Office is to engage in conjecture, such
competitionbetweentheregionalstationsandtheMetroManilastationwillbenefitthepublicassuch
[46]
competitionwillmostlikelyresultintheproductionofbettertelevisionprograms.

Alltold,wefindthattheCourtofAppealscorrectlyupheldthedecisionoftheIPODirector
GeneralthatPMSIdidnotinfringeonABSCBNsintellectualpropertyrightsundertheIPCode.The
findingsoffactsofadministrativebodieschargedwiththeirspecificfieldofexpertise,areafforded
great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made
from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of
[47]
stabilityofthegovernmentalstructure,shouldnotbedisturbed.

Moreover,thefactualfindingsoftheCourtofAppealsareconclusiveonthepartiesandarenot
reviewablebytheSupremeCourt.TheycarryevenmoreweightwhentheCourtofAppealsaffirms
[48]
thefactualfindingsofalowerfactfindingbody,
asintheinstantcase.

ThereislikewisenomerittoABSCBNscontentionthattheMemorandumCircularexcludes
from its coverage DTH television services such as those provided by PMSI. Section 6.2 of the
MemorandumCircularrequiresallcabletelevisionsystemoperatorsoperatinginacommunitywithin
GradeAorBcontourstocarrythetelevisionsignalsoftheauthorizedtelevisionbroadcaststations.
[49]
Therationalebehinditsissuancecanbefoundinthewhereasclauseswhichstate:

Whereas, Cable Television Systems or Community Antenna Television (CATV) have shown
their ability to offer additional programming and to carry much improved broadcast signals in the
remote areas, thereby enriching the lives of the rest of the population through the dissemination of
social,economic,educationalinformationandculturalprograms

Whereas, the national government supports the promotes the orderly growth of the Cable
Television industry within the framework of a regulated fee enterprise, which is a hallmark of a
democraticsociety

Whereas, public interest so requires that monopolies in commercial mass media shall be
regulatedorprohibited,hence,toachievethesame,thecableTVindustryismadepartofthebroadcast
media


Whereas, pursuant to Act 3846 as amended and Executive Order 205 granting the National
TelecommunicationsCommissiontheauthoritytosetdownrulesandregulationsinordertoprotectthe
public and promote the general welfare, the National Telecommunications Commission hereby
promulgatesthefollowingrulesandregulationsonCableTelevisionSystems

ThepolicyoftheMemorandumCircularistocarryimprovedsignalsinremoteareasforthe
goodofthegeneralpublicandtopromotedisseminationofinformation.Inlinewiththispolicy,itis
clearthatDTHtelevisionshouldbedeemedcoveredbytheMemorandumCircular.Notwithstanding
the different technologies employed, both DTH and cable television have the ability to carry
improvedsignalsandpromotedisseminationofinformationbecausetheyoperateandfunctioninthe
sameway.

[50]
In its December 20, 2002 letter,
the NTC explained that both DTH and cable television
services are of a similar nature, the only difference being the medium of delivering such services.
Theycancarrybroadcastsignalstotheremoteareasandpossessthecapabilitytoenrichthelivesof
the residents thereof through the dissemination of social, economic, educational information and
culturalprograms.Consequently,whiletheMemorandumCircularreferstocabletelevision,itshould
beunderstoodastoincludeDTHtelevisionwhichprovidesessentiallythesameservices.

InEasternTelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc.v.InternationalCommunicationCorporation,
[51]
weheld:

TheNTC,beingthegovernmentagencyentrustedwiththeregulationofactivitiescomingunder
its special and technical forte, and possessing the necessary rulemaking power to implement its
objectives,isinthebestpositiontointerpretitsownrules,regulationsandguidelines.TheCourthas
consistentlyyieldedandaccordedgreatrespecttotheinterpretationbyadministrativeagenciesoftheir
own rules unless there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
[52]
discretionclearlyconflictingwiththeletterandspiritofthelaw.

Withregardtotheissueoftheconstitutionalityofthemustcarryrule,theCourtfindsthatits
resolutionisnotnecessaryinthedispositionoftheinstantcase.Oneoftheessentialrequisitesfora
successful judicial inquiry into constitutional questions is that the resolution of the constitutional
[53]
[54]
questionmustbenecessaryindecidingthecase.
InSpousesMirasolv.CourtofAppeals,
we
held:

As a rule, the courts will not resolve the constitutionality of a law, if the controversy can be
settledonothergrounds.Thepolicyofthecourtsistoavoidrulingonconstitutionalquestionsandto
presumethattheactsofthepoliticaldepartmentsarevalid,absentaclearandunmistakableshowingto
thecontrary.Todoubtistosustain.Thispresumptionisbasedonthedoctrineofseparationofpowers.

This means that the measure had first been carefully studied by the legislative and executive
departmentsandfoundtobeinaccordwiththeConstitutionbeforeitwasfinallyenactedandapproved.
[55]

The instant case was instituted for violation of the IP Code and infringement of ABSCBNs
broadcastingrightsandcopyright,whichcanberesolvedwithoutgoingintotheconstitutionalityof
Memorandum Circular No. 040888. As held by the Court of Appeals, the only relevance of the
circular in this case is whether or not compliance therewith should be considered manifestation of
lack of intent to commit infringement, and if it is, whether such lack of intent is a valid defense
[56]
againstthecomplaintofpetitioner.

The records show that petitioner assailed the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular No.
040888bywayofacollateralattackbeforetheCourtofAppeals.InPhilippineNationalBankv.
[57]
Palma,
we ruled that for reasons of public policy, the constitutionality of a law cannot be
collaterallyattacked.Alawisdeemedvalidunlessdeclarednullandvoidbyacompetentcourtmore
[58]
sowhentheissuehasnotbeendulypleadedinthetrialcourt.

Asageneralrule,thequestionofconstitutionalitymustberaisedattheearliestopportunityso
thatifnotraisedinthepleadings,ordinarilyitmaynotberaisedinthetrial,andifnotraisedinthe
[59]
trialcourt,itwillnotbeconsideredonappeal.
InPhilippineVeteransBankv.CourtofAppeals,
[60]
weheld:

We decline to rule on the issue of constitutionality as all the requisites for the exercise of
judicial review are not present herein. Specifically, the question of constitutionality will not be
passeduponbytheCourtunless,atthefirstopportunity,itisproperlyraisedandpresentedinan
appropriatecase,adequatelyargued,andisnecessarytoadeterminationofthecase,particularly
[61]
wheretheissueofconstitutionalityistheverylismotapresented.xxx

Finally,wefindthatthedismissalofthepetitionforcontemptfiledbyABSCBNisinorder.

Indirectcontemptmayeitherbeinitiated(1)motupropriobythecourtbyissuinganorderor
anyotherformalchargerequiringtherespondenttoshowcausewhyheshouldnotbepunishedfor
contempt or (2) by the filing of a verified petition, complying with the requirements for filing
[62]
initiatorypleadings.

ABSCBNfiledaverifiedpetitionbeforetheCourtofAppeals,whichwasdocketedCAG.R.
SPNo.90762,forPMSIsallegeddisobediencetotheResolutionandTemporaryRestrainingOrder,
both dated July 18, 2005, issued in CAG.R. SP No. 88092. However, after the cases were
consolidated,theCourtofAppealsdidnotrequirePMSItocommentonthepetitionforcontempt.It
ruledonthemeritsofCAG.R.SPNo.88092andorderedthedismissalofbothpetitions.

ABSCBN argues that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for contempt
without having ordered respondents to comment on the same. Consequently, it would have us
reinstate CAG.R. No. 90762 and order respondents to show cause why they should not be held in
contempt.

It bears stressing that the proceedings for punishment of indirect contempt are criminal in
nature.Themodesofprocedureandrulesofevidenceadoptedincontemptproceedingsaresimilarin
[63]
naturetothoseusedincriminalprosecutions.
WhileitmaybearguedthattheCourtofAppeals
shouldhaveorderedrespondentstocomment,theissuehasbeenrenderedmootinlightofourruling
onthemerits.ToorderrespondentstocommentandhavetheCourtofAppealsconductahearingon
the contempt charge when the main case has already been disposed of in favor of PMSI would be
circuitous.Wheretheissueshavebecomemoot,thereisnojusticiablecontroversy,therebyrendering
[64]
theresolutionofthesameofnopracticaluseorvalue.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIED.TheJuly12,2006DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
in CAG.R. SP Nos. 88092 and 90762, sustaining the findings of the DirectorGeneral of the
Intellectual Property Office and dismissing the petitions filed by ABSCBN Broadcasting
Corporation, and the December 11, 2006 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are
AFFIRMED.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIOANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

Iattestthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewas
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJusticeChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,it
isherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

*DesignatedasadditionalmemberoftheThirdDivisioninviewoftheretirementofAssociateJusticeRubenT.Reyes,perSpecialOrder
No.546datedJanuary5,2009.
[1]
Rollo,pp.65178.
[2]
Id.at843.
[3]
Id.at5457.
[4]
ABSCBNwasgrantedafranchiseunderRepublicActNo.7966,entitledANACTGRANTINGTHEABSCBNBROADCASTING
CORPORATION A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN TELEVISION AND RADIO
BROADCASTINGSTATIONSINTHEPHILIPPINES,ANDFOROTHERPURPOSES.
[5]
ANACTGRANTINGTHEPHILIPPINEMULTIMEDIASYSTEM,INC.,AFRANCHISETOCONSTRUCT,INSTALL,ESTABLISH,
OPERATEANDMAINTAINRADIOANDTELEVISIONSTATIONSINTHEPHILIPPINES.
[6]
Rollo,p.316.
[7]
Id.at317.
[8]
RevisedRulesandRegulationsGoverningCableTelevisionSystemsinthePhilippines.
[9]
6.2.MandatoryCoverage
6.2.1.AcableTVsystemoperatinginacommunitywhichiswithintheGradeAorGradeBcontoursofanauthorizedTVbroadcast
stationorstationsmustcarrytheTVsignalsofthesestations.
[10]
Rollo,p.322.
[11]
Id.at852.
[12]
Id.at853854.
[13]
Id.at857.
[14]
Id.at567590.PennedbyEstrellitaBeltranAbelardo,Director,BureauofLegalAffairs.
[15]
Id.at793811.PennedbyDirectorGeneralEmmaC.Francisco.
[16]
Id.at811.
[17]
Id.at43.
[18]
RepublicActNo.8923,effectiveJanuary1,1998.
[19]
ArticleIII,Section9provides:Privatepropertyshallnotbetakenforpublicusewithoutjustcompensation.
[20]
Sec. 177. Copy or Economic Rights. Subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist of the
exclusiverighttocarryout,authorizeorpreventthefollowingacts:
xxxx
177.6.Publicperformanceoftheworkand
177.7.Othercommunicationtothepublicofthework(Sec.5,P.D.No.49a)
[21]
EnteredintoforceonSeptember25,1984.source:http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=17.
[22]
Rollo,pp.805809.
[23]
EighthSession,Geneva,November48,2002.
[24]
Id.atparagraph58,page12.
[25]
Id.atparagraphs4749,page10.
[26]
E.O.No.546,Sec.15.FunctionsoftheCommission.TheCommissionshallexercisethefollowingfunctions:
a.IssueCertificateofPublicConveniencefortheoperationofcommunicationsutilitiesandservices,radiocommunicationssystems,
wireorwirelesstelephoneortelegraphsystems,radioandtelevisionbroadcastingsystemandothersimilarpublicutilities
b.Establish,prescribeandregulateareasofoperationofparticularoperatorsofpublicservicecommunicationsanddetermineand
prescribechargesorratespertinenttotheoperationofsuchpublicutilityfacilitiesandservicesexceptincaseswherechargesorratesare
established by international bodies or associations of which the Philippines is a participating member or by bodies recognized by the
PhilippineGovernmentastheproperarbiterofsuchchargesorrates
c.Grantpermitsfortheuseofradiofrequenciesforwirelesstelephoneandtelegraphsystemsandradiocommunicationsystems
includingamateurradiostationsandradioandtelevisionbroadcastingsystems
d.SuballocateseriesoffrequenciesofbandsallocatedbytheInternationalTelecommunicationsUniontothespecificservices

e. Establish and prescribe rules, regulations, standards, specifications in all cases related to the issued Certificate of Public
Convenienceandadministerandenforcethesame
f.Coordinate and cooperate with government agencies and other entities concerned with any aspect involving communications
withaviewtocontinuouslyimprovethecommunicationsserviceinthecountry
g.Promulgatesuchrulesandregulations,aspublicsafetyandinterestmayrequire,toencouragealargerandmoreeffectiveuseof
communications,radioandtelevisionbroadcastingfacilities,andtomaintaineffectivecompetitionamongprivateentitiesintheseactivities
whenevertheCommissionfindsitreasonablyfeasible
h.Superviseandinspecttheoperationofradiostationsandtelecommunicationsfacilities
i.Undertaketheexaminationandlicensingofradiooperators
j.Undertake,whenevernecessary,theregistrationofradiotransmittersandtransceiversand
k.Performsuchotherfunctionsasmaybeprescribedbylaw.
[27]
Id.,Section15(g).
[28]
PRESCRIBINGPOLICYGUIDELINESTOGOVERNTHEOPERATIONSOFCABLETELEVISIONINTHEPHILIPPINES.
[29]
Rollo,p.810.
[30]
Id.at42.
[31]
Fr.RanhilloCallanganAquino,IntellectualPropertyLaw:CommentsandAnnotations,2003,p.5.
[32]
SEC.9.TheStateshallpromoteajustanddynamicsocialorderthatwillensuretheprosperityandindependenceofthenationandfree
thepeoplefrompovertythroughpoliciesthatprovideadequatesocialservices,promotefullemployment,arisingstandardofliving,andan
improvedqualityoflifeforall.
[33]
SEC.17.TheStateshallgiveprioritytoeducation,scienceandtechnology,arts,culture,andsportstofosterpatriotismandnationalism,
acceleratesocialprogress,andpromotetotalhumanliberationanddevelopment.
[34]
SEC.24.TheStaterecognizesthevitalroleofcommunicationandinformationinnationbuilding.
[35]
Rollo,p.40.
[36]
352Phil.153(1998).
[37]
Id.at171174.
[38]
Rollo,pp.129130.
[39]
Id.at134.
[40]
Artuzv.CourtofAppeals,417Phil.588,597(2001).
[41]
Navarrov.ClerkofCourt,A.M.No.P051962,February17,2005,451SCRA626,629.
[42]
Rollo,Comment,p.1249.
[43]
http://www.dreamsatellite.com/about.htm
[44]
Rollo,p.810.
[45]
Telecom.&BroadcastAttys.ofthePhils.,Incv.COMELEC,352Phil.153,173(1998).
[46]
Rollo,pp.810811.
[47]
Ocampov.Salalila,382Phil.522,532(2000).
[48]
Galav.ElliceAgroIndustrialCorporation,G.R.No.156819,December11,2003,418SCRA431,444.
[49]
Supranote9.
[50]
Supranote11.
[51]
G.R.No.135992,January31,2006,481SCRA163.
[52]
Id.at166167.
[53]
Meralcov.SecretaryofLabor,361Phil.845,867(1999).
[54]
403Phil.760(2001).
[55]
Id.at774.
[56]
Rollo,p.41citingtheDecisionoftheDirectorGeneraloftheIPO.
[57]
G.R.No.157279,August9,2005,466SCRA307.

[58]
Id.at322323.
[59]
JoaquinG.Bernas,The1987ConstitutionoftheRepublicofthePhilippines:ACommentary,p.858(1996),citingPeoplev.Vera,65
Phil.56(1937).
[60]
G.R.No.132561,June30,2005,462SCRA336.
[61]
Id.at349.
[62]
Montenegrov.Montenegro,G.R.No.156829,June8,2004.
[63]
Sorianov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.128938,June4,2004,431SCRA1,78.
[64]
Delgadov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.137881,August19,2005,467SCRA418,428.