Page

CASE TITLE:
GLOBE TELECOM, INC., petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH
A. SANTIAGO, DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS AURELIO M. UMALI and
NESTOR
DACANAY,
and
SMART
COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.respondents.
DOCKET NUMBER:
G.R. No. 143964
DATE:
July 26, 2004
PONENTE:
Tinga, J.
FACTS:
On 4 June 1999, Smart filed a Complaint with public respondent NTC, praying that
NTC order the immediate interconnection of Smart's and Globe's GSM networks,
particularly their respective SMS or texting services. TheComplaint arose from the
inability of the two leading CMTS providers to effect interconnection. Smart alleged
that Globe, with evident bad faith and malice, refused to grant Smart's request for
the interconnection of SMS. On 7 June 1999, NTC issued a Show Cause Order,
informing Globe of the Complaint.
Globe filed its Answer with Motion to Dismiss on 7 June 1999, interposing grounds
that the Complaint was premature, Smart's failure to comply with the conditions
precedent required in Section 6 of NTC Memorandum Circular 9-7-93, and its
omission of the mandatory Certification of Non-Forum Shopping. Smart responded
that it had already submitted the voluminous documents asked by Globe in
connection with other interconnection agreements between the two carriers, and
that with those voluminous documents the interconnection of the SMS systems
could be expedited by merely amending the parties' existing CMTS-to-CMTS
interconnection agreements.
On 19 July 1999, NTC issued the Order now subject of the present petition. NTC held
that since SMS falls squarely within the definition of "value-added service" or
"enhanced-service" given in NTC Memorandum Circular No. 8-9-95 (MC No. 8-995) the implementation of SMS interconnection is mandatory pursuant to
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 59.
Globe filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to
nullify and set aside the Orderand to prohibit NTC from taking any further action in
the case.
The Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order on 31 August 1999.
On 22 November 1999, a Decision was promulgated by the Former Special Fifth
Division of the Court of Appeals affirming in toto the NTC Order. Interestingly, on
the same day Globe and Smart voluntarily agreed to interconnect their respective
SMS systems, and the interconnection was effected at midnight of that day.

Telecoms Law Case Digests

Page

After the Court of Appeals denied the Motion for Partial Reconsideration, Globe
elevated the controversy to this Court. The latter contends that the Court of Appeals
erred in holding that the NTC has the power under Section 17 of the Public Service
Law to subject Globe to an administrative sanction and a fine without prior notice
and hearing in violation of the due process requirements.
ISSUE:
Whetheror not NTC may legally require Globe to secure NTC approval before it
continues providing SMS.
RULING:
The Order effectively discriminatory and arbitrary as it is, was issued with grave
abuse of discretion and it must be set aside. NTC may not legally require Globe to
secure its approval for Globe to continue providing SMS. This does not imply though
that NTC lacks authority to regulate SMS or to classify it as VAS. However, the move
should be implemented properly, through unequivocal regulations applicable to all
entities that are similarly situated, and in an even-handed manner.
The NTC Order is not supported by substantial evidence. Neither does it sufficiently
explain the reasons for the decision rendered. While stability in the law, particularly
in the business field, is desirable, there is no demand that the NTC slavishly follow
precedent. However, we think it essential, for the sake of clarity and intellectual
honesty, that if an administrative agency decides inconsistently with previous
action, that it explain thoroughly why a different result is warranted, or if need be,
why the previous standards should no longer apply or should be overturned. Such
explanation is warranted in order to sufficiently establish a decision as having
rational basis. Any inconsistent decision lacking thorough, ratiocination in support
may be struck down as being arbitrary. And any decision with absolutely nothing to
support it is a nullity.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Petition GRANTED.

Telecoms Law Case Digests

3
Page
CASE TITLE:
PHILIPPINE
LONG
DISTANCE
TELEPHONE
CO.
[PLDT], petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
AND
CELLCOM,
INC.,
(EXPRESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. [ETCI]), respondents.
DOCKET NUMBER:
G.R. No. 88404
DATE:
October 18, 1990
PONENTE:
Melencio-Herrera, J.
FACTS:
On 22 June 1958, Rep. Act No. 2090, was enacted, otherwise known as "An Act
Granting Felix Alberto and Company, Incorporated, a Franchise to Establish Radio
Stations for Domestic and Transoceanic Telecommunications." Felix Alberto & Co.,
Inc. (FACI) was the original corporate name, which was changed to ETCI with the
amendment of the Articles of Incorporation in 1964. Much later, "CELLCOM, Inc."
was the name sought to be adopted before the Securities and Exchange
Commission, but this was withdrawn and abandoned.
On 13 May 1987, alleging urgent public need, ETCI filed an application with public
respondent NTC (docketed as NTC Case No. 87-89) 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, with a prayer for
provisional authority to operate Phase A of its proposal within Metro Manila.
PLDT filed an Opposition with a Motion to Dismiss, based primarily on the following
grounds: (1) ETCI is not capacitated or qualified under its legislative franchise to
operate a systemwide telephone or network of telephone service such as the one
proposed in its application; (2) ETCI lacks the facilities needed and indispensable to
the successful operation of the proposed cellular mobile telephone system; (3) PLDT
has itself a pending application with NTC, Case No. 86-86, to install and operate a
Cellular Mobile Telephone System for domestic and international service not only in
Manila but also in the provinces and that under the "prior operator" or "protection of
investment" doctrine, PLDT has the priority or preference in the operation of such
service; and (4) the provisional authority, if granted, will result in needless,
uneconomical and harmful duplication, among others.
In an Order, dated 12 November 1987, NTC overruled PLDT's Opposition and
declared that Rep. Act No. 2090 (1958) should be liberally construed as to include
Telecoms Law Case Digests

Page

among the services under said franchise the operation of a cellular mobile
telephone service.
After evaluating the reconsideration sought by PLDT, the NTC, in October 1988,
maintained its ruling that liberally construed, applicant's franchise carries with it the
privilege to operate and maintain a cellular mobile telephone service.
On 12 December 1988, NTC issued the first challenged Order. PLDT urges us now to
annul the NTC Orders of 12 December 1988 and 8 May 1989 and to order ETCI to
desist from, suspend, and/or discontinue any and all acts intended for its
implementation.
We required PLDT to post a bond of P 5M. It has complied, with the statement that it
was "post(ing) the same on its agreement and/or consent to have the same
forfeited in favor of Private Respondent ETCI/CELLCOM should the instant Petition be
dismissed for lack of merit." ETCI took exception to the sufficiency of the bond
considering its initial investment of approximately P 225M, but accepted the
forfeiture proferred.
ETCI moved to have the TRO lifted, which we denied on 6 March 1990. We stated,
however, that the inaugural ceremony ETCI had scheduled for that day could
proceed, as the same was not covered by the TRO.

ISSUE:
Whether or not theres grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of or excess of
jurisdiction, on the part of the National Telecommunications Commission in issuing
its challenged Orders of 12 December 1988 and 8 May 1989 in NTC Case No. 87-39.
RULING:
Despite the fact that there is a virtual monopoly of the telephone system in the
country at present. service is sadly inadequate. Customer demands are hardly met,
whether fixed or mobile. There is a unanimous cry to hasten the development of a
modern, efficient, satisfactory and continuous telecommunications service not only
in Metro Manila but throughout the archipelago. The need therefor was dramatically
emphasized by the destructive earthquake of 16 July 1990. It may be that users of
the cellular mobile telephone would initially be limited to a few and to highly
commercialized areas. However, it is a step in the right direction towards the
enhancement of the telecommunications infrastructure, the expansion of
telecommunications services in, hopefully, all areas of the country, with chances of
complete disruption of communications minimized. It will thus impact on, the total
development of the country's telecommunications systems and redound to the
benefit of even those who may not be able to subscribe to ETCI.
Free competition in the industry may also provide the answer to a much-desired
improvement in the quality and delivery of this type of public utility, to improved
Telecoms Law Case Digests

Page

technology, fast and handy mobile service, and reduced user dissatisfaction. After
all, neither PLDT nor any other public utility has a constitutional right to a monopoly
position in view of the Constitutional proscription that no franchise certificate or
authorization shall be exclusive in character or shall last longer than fifty (50) years
(ibid., Section 11; Article XIV Section 5, 1973 Constitution; Article XIV, Section 8,
1935 Constitution). Additionally, the State is empowered to decide whether public
interest demands that monopolies be regulated or prohibited (1987 Constitution.
Article XII, Section 19).

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Petition DISMISSED.
CASE TITLE:
THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY
TREASURER
OF
QUEZON
CITY,
DR.
VICTOR
B.
ENRIGA, Petitioners,
vs.
BAYAN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Respondent.
DOCKET NUMBER:
G.R. No. 162015
DATE:
March 6, 2006
PONENTE:
Garcia, J.
FACTS:
Respondent Bayan Telecommunications, Inc. (Bayantel) is a legislative franchise
holder under Republic Act (Rep. Act) No. 3259 to establish and operate radio
stations for domestic telecommunications, radiophone, broadcasting and
telecasting.
Of relevance to this controversy is the tax provision of Rep. Act No. 3259, embodied
in Section 14 thereof, which reads:
SECTION 14. (a) The grantee shall be liable to pay the same taxes on its real estate,
buildings and personal property, exclusive of the franchise, as other persons or
corporations are now or hereafter may be required by law to pay. (b) The grantee
shall further pay to the Treasurer of the Philippines each year, within ten days after
the audit and approval of the accounts as prescribed in this Act, one and one-half
per centum of all gross receipts from the business transacted under this franchise
by the said grantee (Emphasis supplied).
On January 1, 1992, Rep. Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the "Local Government
Code of 1991" (LGC), took effect. Section 232 of the Code grants local government
units within the Metro Manila Area the power to levy tax on real properties, thus:
SEC. 232. Power to Levy Real Property Tax. A province or city or a municipality
within the Metropolitan Manila Area may levy an annual ad valorem tax on real
Telecoms Law Case Digests

Page

property such as land, building, machinery and other improvements not hereinafter
specifically exempted.
Complementing the aforequoted provision is the second paragraph of Section 234 of
the same Code which withdrew any exemption from realty tax heretofore granted to
or enjoyed by all persons, natural or juridical, to wit:
SEC. 234 - Exemptions from Real Property Tax.
In 1993, the government of Quezon City, pursuant to the taxing power vested on
local governmentunits by Section 5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, infra, in
relation to Section 232 of the LGC, supra, enacted City Ordinance No. SP-91, S-93,
otherwise known as the Quezon City Revenue Code (QCRC), imposing, under
Section 5 thereof, a real property tax on all real properties in Quezon City, and,
reiterating in its Section 6, the withdrawal of exemption from real property tax
under Section 234 of the LGC, supra. Furthermore, much like the LGC, the QCRC,
under its Section 230, withdrew tax exemption privileges in general.
On January 7, 1999, Bayantel wrote the office of the City Assessor seeking the
exclusion of its real properties in the city from the roll of taxable real properties.
With its request having been denied, Bayantel interposed an appeal with the Local
Board of Assessment Appeals (LBAA). And, evidently on its firm belief of its exempt
status, Bayantel did not pay the real property taxes assessed against it by the
Quezon City government.
On July 29, 2002, or in the eve of the public auction scheduled the following day,
the lower court issued a TRO, followed, after due hearing, by a writ of preliminary
injunction via its order of August 20, 2002.
And, having heard the parties on the merits, the same court came out with its
challenged Decision of June 6, 2003, declaring petitioners franchise described in
the mentioned tax declarations are EXEMPT from real estate taxation.
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied by the court in its Order dated
December 30, 2003, petitioners elevated the case directly to this Court on pure
questions of law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Bayantels real properties in Quezon City are exempt from real
property taxes under its legislative franchise.
RULING:
Under this law, the Legislature highlighted its power to thereafter exempt certain
realties from the taxing power of local government units. An interpretation denying
Congress such power to exempt would reduce the phrase "not hereinafter
Telecoms Law Case Digests

Page

specifically exempted" as a pure jargon, without meaning whatsoever. Needless to

state, such absurd situation is unacceptable.
Indeed, the grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution
and the LGC does not affect the power of Congress to grant exemptions to certain
persons, pursuant to a declared national policy. The legal effect of the constitutional
grant to local governments simply means that in interpreting statutory provisions on
municipal taxing powers, doubts must be resolved in favor of municipal
corporations.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Petition DENIED.

Telecoms Law Case Digests