Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case

    Uploaded by

    Yeri
    23 views1 page
    The Supreme Court dismissed PLDT's petition challenging two orders by the NTC that granted provisional authority to ETCI to install and operate a cellular mobile phone system. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NTC. While PLDT argued ETCI lacked capacity and the authority under its franchise, the Court ruled that RA 2090 should be construed liberally to allow the proposed services. The decisive factors were public need, interest, and common good. One justice dissented, siding with PLDT's position that allowing another company to use PLDT's existing lines compelled unfair competition. Another justice concurred except for the interconnection requirement, finding it violated due process by allowing ETCI

    Original Description:

    Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court dismissed PLDT's petition challenging two orders by the NTC that granted provisional authority to ETCI to install and operate a cellular mobile phone system. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NTC. While PLDT argued ETCI lacked capacity and the authority under its franchise, the Court ruled that RA 2090 should be construed liberally to allow the proposed services. The decisive factors were public need, interest, and common good. One justice dissented, siding with PLDT's position that allowing another company to use PLDT's existing lines compelled unfair competition. Another justice concurred except for the interconnection requirement, finding it violated due process by allowing ETCI

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    Case

    Uploaded by

    Yeri
    The Supreme Court dismissed PLDT's petition challenging two orders by the NTC that granted provisional authority to ETCI to install and operate a cellular mobile phone system. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NTC. While PLDT argued ETCI lacked capacity and the authority under its franchise, the Court ruled that RA 2090 should be construed liberally to allow the proposed services. The decisive factors were public need, interest, and common good. One justice dissented, siding with PLDT's position that allowing another company to use PLDT's existing lines compelled unfair competition. Another justice concurred except for the interconnection requirement, finding it violated due process by allowing ETCI

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    136.

    PLDT v NTC
    G.R. No. 88404
    October 18, 1990

    PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO. – PETITIONERS


    NTC, ETCI – RESPONDENT
    PONENTE: Justice MELENCIO-HERRERA

    Petitioner assails 2 Orders of public respondent NTC; 1) the order granting private
    respondent ETCI provisional authority to install, operate and maintain a Cellular Mobile
    Phone System in Metro-Manila, and 2) the order denying reconsideration.

    FACTS:

     RA No 2090 was enacted granting a franchise, ETCI (formerly known as FACI), to establish radio stations for
    domestic and transoceanic telecommunications.
     ETCI filed an application with the public respondent for the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience
    and Necessity (CPCN) to construct, install, establish, operate, and maintain a Cellular Mobile Telephone
    System and an Alpha Numeric Paging System in Metro Manila and in the Southern Luzon Regions.
     PLDT filed a motion to dismiss the application.
     NTC issued the first challenged Order: opining that “public interest, convenience and necessity further
    demand a second cellular mobile telephone service provider and finds a prima facie evidence that the
    applicant has the capability to provide such.
     NTC granted ETCI provided that PLDT and ETCI shall enter into an interconnection agreement.
     PLDT filed a motion to set aside the first order which NTC denied. Hence, the second questioned order.

    PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS


    ETCI is not capacitated or qualified under its legislative RA 2090 should be liberally construed as to include
    franchise to operate a network of telephone service among the services under said franchise the operation
    such as the one proposed. of a cellular mobile telephone service.

    ETCI lacks the facilities needed for the successful


    operation of its proposal.
    PLDT likewise has an identical pending application with
    NTC, thereby giving it the priority under the “prior
    operator” doctrine
    The provisional authority will result in needless,
    uneconomical, and harmful duplication, among others.
    RULING/S:

    SUPREME COURT (IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT):

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The TRO is LIFTED

    ISSUE: WON the NTC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    jurisdiction in granting provisional authority to ETCI under the NTC questioned orders.

    - The Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NTC. What the NTC granted was such a
    provisional authority, with a definite expiry period of 18 months unless sooner renewed, and which may be
    revoked, amended or revised by the NTC. It is also limited to Metro Manila only. What is more, the main
    proceedings are clearly to continue as stated in the NTC Order.
    - The decisive considerations are public need, public interest, and the common good. Those were the
    overriding factors which motivated NTC in granting provisional authority to ETCI. Article II, Section 24 of
    the 1987 Constitution, recognized the vital role of communication and information in nation-building. It
    is likewise a State policy to provide the environment for the emergence of communications structures
    suitable to the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country.

    DISSENTING OPINION, Justice GUTIERREZ JR:


     I can, therefore, understand PLDT’s reluctance since it has its own franchise to operate exactly the same services with ETCI is
    endeavouring to establish. PLDT would be using its own existing lines. Under the Court’s decision, it would be compelled to allow
    another company to use those same lines in direct competition with the lines’ owner. The cellular system is actually only an adjunct
    to a regular telephone system, not a separate and independent system. As an adjunct and component unit or as a parasite, it must be
    fed by the mother organism or unit if it is to survive.

    CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION, Justice CRUZ


     I fully agree with all the rulings in the ponencia except the approval of the requirement for PLDT to interconnect with ETCI. I think it
    violates due process. It reminds me of the story of the little red hen who found some rice and asked who would help her plant it. None
    of the animals in the farm was willing and neither did they help in watering, harvesting and finally cooking it. But when she asked,
    “Who will help me eat the rice?” everyone wanted to join in. the little red hen is like PLDT.
     If ETCI wants to operate its own telephone system, it should rely on its own resources instead of riding piggy-back on PLDT. It seems
    to me rather unfair for the Government to require PLDT to share with a newcomer and potential rival what it took PLDT tremendous
    effort and long years and billions of pesos to build.

    You might also like