CONSTITUTIONAL*LAW*II*DIGESTS*(2012*–*2013)* * * *********ATTY.

*SEDFREY*CANDELARIA*
*
RADIOCOM(v(NTC( ISSUES(TO(BE(RESOLVED/RESOLUTIONS(AND(ARGUMENTS:(
( ISSUE( 1( ! ( WON" the" NTC" gravely" abused" its" discretion" amounting" to"
Petitioners:" Radio" Communications" of" the" Philippines" Inc" (RCPI)," excess" or" lack" of" jurisdiction" in" issuing" provisional" authority" in" favor" of"
Philippine"Telegraph"and"Telephone"Corporation"(PTTC),"Clavecilla"Radio" PLDT"without"prior"notice"to"the"petitioners."NO(
System"(CRS)" ! The" Public" Service" Commission" (PSC;" now" NTC)" found" that" the"
( application" involved" in" the" petition" is" actually" for" approval" of"
Respondents:" National" Telecommunications" Commision" (NTC)," rates" for" digital" transmission" service" facilities" which" it" may"
Philippine"Long"Distance"Telephone"Company"(PLDT)" provisionally" approve" and" without" the" necessity" of" notice" and"
( hearing.""
BACKGROUND( The"PSC"is"empowered"to"approve"provisionally"rates"of"
! January" 4," 1984:" private" respondent" PLDT" filed" an" application" utilities"without"the"necessity"of"a"prior"hearing."This"is"because"
with"NTC"for"Approval"of"Rates"for"Digital"Transmission"Service" provisional" rates" are" by" their" nature" temporary" and" subject" to"
Facilities." NTC" provisionally" approved" and" set" the" case" for" adjustment"and"revision"after"the"final"hearing."It"is"this"that"the"
hearing."" NTC" granted" and" NOT" any" authority" to" engage" in" new"
! NTC"issued"a"notice"of"hearing"and"set"it"on"February"22,"1984." communication"services.""
In" said" notice," petitioners" except" PTTC," were" NOT" included" in" Also,"it"would"be"impossible"for"the"NTC"to"give"personal"
the"list"of"affected"parties."Petitioners"alleged"that"neither"NTC" notice" to" ALL" parties" affected," as" not" all" of" them" are" known" to"
nor" PLDT" informed" them" of" the" existence" of" the" provisional" the" NTC." Besides," the" notice" of" hearing" was" published," as"
authority." admitted"by"the"petitioners"themselves.""
! Petitioners" allege" that" the" application" filed" by" PLDT" is" not" for" Lastly,"a"doctrine"long"recognized"is"that"where"the"law"
approval"of"rates"but"for"authority"to"engage"in"new"services"not" confines" in" an" administrative" office" the" power" to" determine"
covered" by" its" franchise" and" certificate" of" public" convenience" particular" questions" or" matters" upon" the" facts" presented," the"
and" necessity." They" claim" that" the" issuance" of" NTC" of" the" jurisdiction"of"such"office"shall"prevail"over"the"courts.""
provisional" authority" without" notice" and" hearing" constitutes" "
grave"abuse"of"discretion." "
! PLDT" refuted" such" facts" as" grossly" false" and" misrepresented." It"
claims"that"the"NTC’s"provisional"approval"is"a"valid"exercise"of"
its" jurisdiction" since" the" franchise" of" PLDT" also" authorizes" it" to"
operate" not" only" telephone" systems," but" also" transmission"
service" facilities." In" fact," PLDT" pointed" out" that" petitioners"
themselves" except" CRS" are" actual" users" of" PLDT" lines" or"
channels"for"data"transmission."
(
(
(

*
Chan=Gonzaga*Evardone*Gutierrez*Lopez*Miclat*Nadal*Radoc*Superio*Tan*Tong*Valdez*Varela*