NTC vs CA and PLDT
GR No. 127937, July 28, 1999
311 SCRA 508
Facts:
Sometime in 1988, the NTC served on PLDT
assessment notices and demands for
payment under Section 40 (e) (f) and (g) o f
the Public Service Act (PSA). PLDT
challenged the aforesaid assessments.
On September 29, 1993, the NTC
rendered a Decision in NTC Case No. 90-223,
denying the protest of PLDT due to lack of merit.
On October 1993, PLDT interposed a
M o t io n fo r Reco ns i der at io n w h ic h w as
denied by NTC in an Order issued on
May1994. PLDT then appealed the
aforesaid Decision to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals ordered the NTC to
compute the a s s e s s m e n t s a n d d e m a n d s
f o r p a y m e n t again. On November 20, 1996,
NTC moved for partial
reconsideration of the
abovementioned decision, with respect to
the basis of the assessment under
Section4 0 (e) i.e. the par v alue o f the
subscribed c a p i t a l s t o c k . I t a l s o
s o u g h t a p a r t i a l reconsideration of
the fee of fifty (P0.50) centavos for the
issuance or increasing of t h e c a p i t a l
s t o c k u n d e r S e c t i o n 4 0 ( f ) . However,
the CA denied the motions. With the denial of
its motions for reconsideration by the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals,
petitioner found its way to this Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that
the computation of supervision
a n d regulation fees under section 40 (f)
of the PSA should be based on the par value of
the subscribed capital stock.
Held:
Yes. The ruling is clear in the case of PLDT vs PSC,
66 SCRA 341, that the basis for computation
of the fee to be charged by N T C o n
PLDT, is “the capital stock
subscribed or paid and not, alternatively, the
property and equipment.” The
fee in question is based on the
c a p i t a l s t o c k s u bsc r ibe d o r pa i d,
n o t hi n g le ss no t h in g more. It should be
reiterated that the proper b a s i s f o r t h e
c o m p u t a t i o n o f s u b j e c t f e e under
Section 40(e) of the Public Service Act, as
amended by Republic Act No. 3792,is “the
capital stock subscribed or paid and n o t ,
alternatively, the property and
equipment. “ I t b e a r s s tr e s s i n g t h a t i t is
not the NTC that imposed such a fee.
I t i s t h e legislature itself. Since Congress
has the power to exercise the State inherent
powers o f P o l i c e P o w e r , E m i n e n t
D o m a i n a n d Taxation , the distinction
between po lice power and the power to
tax, which could be significant if the
exercising authority were mere political
subdivisions, would not be of a n y m o m e n t
when, as in the case under
consideration, Congress itself exercises the
power. All that is to be done would be to
apply and enforce the law when sufficiently
definitive and not constitutional infirm.