G.R. No. L-68729 May 29, 1987 RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION an !A"UMANGGI RADIO NET#OR! INCORPORATED, Respondents. FACTS$ This petition seeks the reversal of the decision of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) which ordered petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines, Incorporated (RCPI) to desist from operating its radio telephone services in Catarman, Northern amar! an "ose, #ccidental $indoro! and orsogon, orsogon. #n %ecem&er '(, ')*+, the private respondent filed a complaint with the NTC alleging that the petitioner was operating in Catarman, amar and in an "ose, $indoro without a certificate of pu&lic covenience and necessit,. The petitioner, on the other hand, counter-alleged that its telephone services in the places su&.ect of the complaint are covered &, the legislative franchise recogni/ed &, &oth the pu&lic respondent and its predecessor, the Pu&lic ervice Commission. In its supplemental repl,, the petitioner further stated that it has &een in operation in the 0uestioned places long &efore private respondent 1a,umanggi filed its application to operate in the same places. ISSUES$ 2hether or not petitioner RCPI, a grantee of a legislative franchise to operate a radio compan,, is re0uired to secure a certificate of pu&lic convenience and necessit, &efore it can validl, operate its radio stations including radio telephone services in Catarman, Northern amar! an "ose, #ccidental $indoro! and orsogon, orsogon. RULING$ 3es. The Constitution mandates that a franchise cannot &e e4clusive in nature nor can a franchise &e granted e4cept that it must &e su&.ect to amendment, alteration, or even repeal &, the legislature when the common good so re0uires. (5rt. 6II, sec. '' of the ')*7 Constitution). There is an e4press provision in the petitioner8s franchise which provides compliance with the a&ove mandate R.5. 9:+7, sec. ';).

2<=R=>#R=, the challenged order of the pu&lic respondent dated 5ugust 99, ')*( is here&, 5>>IR$=%. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.