10 etp vs icc

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

1/9

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135992. July 23, 2004]

EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. andTELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,petitioners, vs.INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION CORPORATION, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

The role of the telecommunications industry in Philippine progress and development cannot beunderstated. Time was when the industry was dominated by a few -- an oligarchy of sorts wherethe elite made the decisions and serfdom had no choice but acquiesce. Sensing the need toabrogate their dominion, the government formulated policies in order to create an environmentconducive to the entry of new players. Thus, in October 1990, the National TelecommunicationsDevelopment Plan 1991-2010 (NTDP) was formulated and came into being. Designed by theDepartment of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), the NTDP provides for the frameworkof government policies, objectives and strategies that will guide the industrys development for thenext 20 years. As expected, with it came the increase in the demand for telecommunications

services, especially in the area of local exchange carrier service (LECS).[1]

Concomitantly, the DOTC issued guidelines for the rationalization of local exchangetelecommunications service. In particular, the DOTC issued on September 30, 1991, DepartmentCircular No. 91-260, with the purpose of minimizing or eliminating situations wherein multipleoperators provide local exchange service in a given area. Pursuant thereto, the NationalTelecommunications Commission (NTC) was tasked to define the boundaries of local exchangeareas and authorize only one franchised local exchange carrier to provide local exchange service

within such areas.

Thereafter, on July 12, 1993, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 109entitled Local Exchange Carrier Service. Section 2 thereof provides that all existing International

Gateway Facility (IGF) operators[2]

are required to provide local exchange carrier services inunserved and underserved areas, including Metro Manila, thereby promoting universal access tobasic telecommunications service.

The NTC promulgated Memorandum Circular No. 11-9-93 on September 17, 1993implementing the objectives of E.O. No. 109.

[3]Section 3 of the Circular mandates existing IGF

operators to file a petition for the issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity(CPCN) to install, operate and maintain local exchange carrier services within two years fromeffectivity thereof. Section 4 further requires IGF operators to provide a minimum of 300 localexchange lines per one international switch termination and a minimum of 300,000 local exchangelines within three years from grant of authority.

To cap the governments efforts, Republic Act No. 7925, otherwise known as the PublicTelecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines, was enacted on March 23, 1995. With regard tolocal exchange service, Section 10 thereof mandates an international carrier to comply with its

obligation to provide local exchange service in unserved or underserved areas within three yearsfrom the grant of authority as required by existing regulations. On September 25, 1995, the NTCissued the Implementing Rules and Regulations for R.A. No. 7925 per its NTC MC No. 8-9-95.

Taking advantage of the opportunities brought about by the passage of these laws, severalIGF operators applied for CPCN to install, operate and maintain local exchange carrier services in

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

2/9

certain areas. Respondent International Communication Corporation, now known as Bayan

Telecommunications Corporation or Bayantel,[4]

applied for and was given by the NTC a

Provisional Authority (PA)[5]

on March 3, 1995, to install, operate and provide local exchangeservice in Quezon City, Malabon and Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the entire Bicol region.Meanwhile, petitioner Telecommunications Technologies Philippines, Inc. (TTPI), as an affiliate ofpetitioner Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), was granted by the NTC a PA onSeptember 25, 1996, to install, operate and maintain a local exchange service in the Provinces ofBatanes, Cagayan Valley, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, Nueva Vizcaya, Ifugao, Quirino, the cities ofManila and Caloocan, and the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila.

It appears, however, that before TTPI was able to fully accomplish its rollout obligation, ICCapplied for and was given a PA by the NTC on November 10, 1997, to install, operate and maintain

a local exchange service in Manila and Navotas,[6]

two areas which were already covered by TTPIunder its PA dated September 25, 1996.

Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals with application for atemporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46047,arguing that the NTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting a provisional authority torespondent ICC to operate in areas already assigned to TTPI.

On April 30, 1998, the Court of Appeals dismissed[7]

the petition for review on the ground thatthe NTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in granting the PA to TTPI. It sustained theNTCs finding that ICC is legally and financially competent and its network plan technicallyfeasible. The Court of Appeals also ruled that there was no violation of the equal protectionclause because the PA granted to ICC and TTPI were given under different situations and there is

no point of comparison between the two.[8]

Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari, raising the following issues:

I

Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in upholding theOrder of the NTC granting a PA to Respondent to operate LEC services in Manila and Navotas

which are areas already assigned to petitioner TTPI under a prior and subsisting PA.

II

Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to restrain Respondent from

installing LEC services in the areas granted to it by the Order under review.[9]

In support thereof, petitioners posit the following arguments:

(1) The assignment to ICC of areas already allocated to TTPI violates the Service AreaScheme (SAS), which is the guidepost of the laws and issuances governing local exchangeservice;

(2) ICC did not make any showing that an existing operator, TTPI in this case, failed tocomply with the service performance and technical standards prescribed by the NTC, and that thearea is underserved, as required under Section 23 of MC No. 11-9-93;

(3) The facts and figures cited by the NTC, i.e., ICCs alleged remarkable performance infulfilling its rollout obligation and the growth rate in the installation of telephone lines in Manila andNavotas, do not justify the grant of the PA in favor of ICC, nor are they supported by the evidenceon record as these were not presented during the proceedings before the NTC;

(4) ICC did not comply with the requirement of prior consultation with the NTC before itfiled its application, in violation of Sections 3 and 3.1 of MC 11-9-93;

(5) ICC did not comply with Section 27 of MC 11-9-93 requiring that an escrow depositbe made equivalent to 20% and a performance bond equivalent to 10% of the investment required

FOR COMMENT

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

3/9

for the first two years of the project;

(6) ICC is not financially and technically capable of undertaking the project;

(7) The grant of a PA in favor of ICC to operate in areas covered by TTPI will render itdifficult for the latter to cross-subsidize its operations in less profitable areas covered by it and will

threaten its viability to continue as a local exchange operator.[10]

After a review of the records of this case, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion

committed by the Court of Appeals in sustaining the NTCs grant of provisional authority to ICC.The power of the NTC to grant a provisional authority has long been settled. As the regulatory

agency of the national government with jurisdiction over all telecommunications entities, it is

clothed with authority and given ample discretion to grant a provisional permit or authority.[11]

It alsohas the authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for theinstallation, operation, and maintenance of communications facilities and services, radiocommunications systems, telephone and telegraph systems, including the authority to determine

the areas of operations of applicants for telecommunications services.[12]

In this regard, the NTC is

clothed with sufficient discretion to act on matters solely within its competence.[13]

In granting ICC the PA to operate a local exchange carrier service in the Manila and Navotasareas, the NTC took into consideration ICCs financial and technical resources and found them tobe adequate. The NTC also noted ICCs performance in complying with its rollout obligationsunder the previous PA granted to it, thus:

With the proven track record of herein applicant as one of the pacesetters in carrying out itslandlines commitment in its assigned areas, applicant can best respond to public demand for fasterinstallation of telephone lines in Manila and Navotas.

The grant of this application is, therefore, a fitting recognition that should be accorded to anydeserving applicant, such as herein applicant ICC whose remarkable performance in terms of

public service as mandated by Executive Order 109 and Republic Act No. 7925 has persuadedthis Commission to affix the stamp of its approval.

[14]

The Court will not interfere with these findings of the NTC, as these are matters that areaddressed to its sound discretion, being the government agency entrusted with the regulation of

activities coming under its special and technical forte.[15]

Moreover, the exercise of administrativediscretion is a policy decision and a matter that can best be discharged by the government agency

concerned, and not by the courts.[16]

Petitioner insists compliance with the service area scheme (SAS) mandated by DOTC Dept.Circular No. 91-260, to wit:

1. The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) shall define the boundaries oflocal exchange areas, and shall henceforth authorize only one franchised LocalExchange Carrier (LEC) to provide LEC service within such areas.

The Court is not persuaded. Said department circular was issued by the DOTC in 1991, before theadvent of E.O. No. 109 and R.A. No. 7925. When E.O. No. 109 was promulgated in 1993, and R.A.No. 7925 enacted in 1995, the service area scheme was noticeably omitted therefrom. Instead,E.O. No. 109 and R.A. No. 7925 adopted a policy of healthy competition among the local exchangecarrier service providers.

The need to formulate new policies is dictated by evolving goals and demands intelecommunications services. Thus, E.O. No. 109 acknowledges that there is a need to

promulgate new policy directives to meet the targets of Government through the NationalTelecommunications Development Plan (NTDP) of the Department of Transportation andCommunications (DOTC), specifically: (1) to ensure the orderly development of the

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

4/9

telecommunications sector through the provision of service to all areas of the country; (2) to satisfythe unserviced demand for telephones; and (3) to provide healthy competition among authorizedservice providers. Likewise, one of the national policies and objectives of R.A. No. 7925 is to fosterthe improvement and expansion of telecommunications services in the country through a healthycompetitive environment, in which telecommunications carriers are free to make businessdecisions and to interact with one another in providing telecommunications services, with the end

in view of encouraging their financial viability while maintaining affordable rates.[17]

Recently, in Pilipino Telephone Corporation vs. NTC,[18]

the Court had occasion to rule on acase akin to the present dispute, involving the same respondent ICC, and the Pilipino TelephoneCorporation (Piltel). In the Piltel case, ICC applied for a provisional authority to operate a localexchange service in areas already covered by Piltel, which includes Misamis Occidental,Zamboanga del Sur, Davao del Sur, South Cotabato and Saranggani. Piltel opposed ICCsapplication but the NTC denied it, and granted ICCs application. The Court of Appeals dismissedPiltels petition for review, and on certioraribefore this Court, we affirmed the dismissal. The Courtfound that the NTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it granted the ICC aprovisional authority to operate in areas covered by Piltel. We held:

We will not disturb the factual findings of the NTC on the technical and financial capability of the

ICC to undertake the proposed project. We generally accord great weight and even finality tofactual findings of administrative bodies such as the NTC, if substantial evidence supports thefindings as in this case. The exception to this rule is when the administrative agency arbitrarilydisregarded evidence before it or misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel acontrary conclusion had it properly appreciated the evidence. PILTEL gravely failed to show thatthis exception applies to the instant case. Moreover, the exercise of administrative discretion, suchas the issuance of a PA, is a policy decision and a matter that the NTC can best discharge, not thecourts.

PILTEL contends that the NTC violated Section 23 of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 11-9-93,otherwise known as the Implementing Guidelines on the Provisions of EO 109 which states:

Section 23. No other company or entity shall be authorized to provide local exchange service inareas where the LECscomply with the relevant provisions of MTC MC No. 10-17-90 and NTC MCNo. 10-16-90 and that the local exchange service area is not underserved. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 23 of EO 109 does not categorically state that the issuance of a PA is exclusive to anytelecommunications company. Neither Congress nor the NTC can grant an exclusive franchise,certificate, or any other form of authorization to operate a public utility. In Republic v. ExpressTelecommunications Co., the Court held that the Constitution is quite emphatic that theoperation of a public utility shall not be exclusive. Section 11, Article XII of the Constitutionprovides:

Sec. 11. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a publicutility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associationsorganized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixtyper centum of whose capital is owned bysuch citizens, nor shall such franchise, certificate or authorization be exclusive in characteror for a longer period than fifty years. Neither shall any such franchise or right be granted exceptunder the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the Congress

when the common good so requires. xxx (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, in Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. National TelecommunicationsCommission, the Court ruled that the Constitution mandates that a franchise cannot be exclusive

in nature.

. . .

Among the declared national policies in Republic Act No. 7925, otherwise known as the Public
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/aug2003/138295.htm

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

5/9

Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines, is the healthy competition amongtelecommunications carriers, to wit:

Obviously, the need for a healthy competitive environment in telecommunications is sufficientimpetus for the NTC to consider all those applicants, who are willing to offer competition, developthe market and provide the environment necessary for greater public service.

Furthermore, free competition in the industry may also provide the answer to a much-desiredimprovement in the quality and delivery of this type of public utility, to improved technology, fast andhandy mobil[e] service, and reduced user dissatisfaction.

PILTELs contention that the NTC Order amounts to a confiscation of property without due processof law is untenable. Confiscation means the seizure of private property by the government

without compensation to the owner. A franchise to operate a public utility is not an exclusiveprivate property of the franchisee. Under the Constitution, no franchisee can demand or acquireexclusivity in the operation of a public utility. Thus, a franchisee of a public utility cannot complain ofseizure or taking of property because of the issuance of another franchise to a competitor. Every

franchise, certificate or authority to operate a public utility is, by constitutional mandate, non-exclusive. PILTEL cannot complain of a taking of an exclusive right that it does not own and whichno franchisee can ever own.

Likewise, PILTELs argument that the NTC Order violates PILTELs rights as a prior operator has nomerit. The Court resolved a similar question in Republic v. Republic Telephone Company, Inc.In striking down Retelcos claim that it had a right to be protected in its investment as a franchise-holder and prior operator of a telephone service in Malolos, Bulacan, the Court held:

RETELCOs foremost argument is that such operations and maintenance of the telephone systemand solicitation of subscribers by [petitioners] constituted an unfair and ruinous competition to the

detriment of [RETELCO which] is a grantee of both municipal and legislative franchises for thepurpose. In effect, RETELCO pleads for protection from the courts on the assumption that itsfranchises vested in it an exclusive right as prior operator. There is no clear showing by RETELCO,however, that its franchises are of an exclusive character. xxx At any rate, it may very well bepointed out as well that neither did the franchise of PLDT at the time of the controversy conferexclusive rights upon PLDT in the operation of a telephone system. In fact, we have made it amatter of judicial notice that all legislative franchises for the operation of a telephone systemcontain the following provision:

It is expressly provided that in the event the Philippine Government should desire to maintain andoperate for itself the system and enterprise herein authorized, the grantee shall surrender his

franchise and will turn over to the Government said system and all serviceable equipment therein,at cost, less reasonable depreciation.

[19]

Similarly in this case, the grant of a PA to ICC to operate in areas covered by TTPI is not taintedwith any grave abuse of discretion as it was issued by the NTC after taking into account ICCstechnical and financial capabilities, and in keeping with the policy of healthy competition fosteredby E.O. No. 109 and R.A. No. 7925.

In addition, Section 6 of R.A. No. 7925 specifically limits the DOTC from exercising any powerthat will tend to influence or effect a review or a modification of the NTCs quasi-judicial functions, to

wit:

Section 6. Responsibilities of and Limitations to Department Powers. -- The Department ofTransportation and Communications (Department) shall not exercise any power which will tend toinfluence or effect a review or a modification of the Commissions quasi-judicial function.

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

6/9

The power of the NTC in granting or denying a provisional authority to operate a local

exchange carrier service is a quasi-judicial function,[20]

a sphere in which the DOTC cannot intrudeupon. If at all, the service area scheme provided in DOTC Dept. Circular No. 91-260 is only one ofthe factors, but should not in any way, tie down the NTC in its determination of the propriety of agrant of a provisional authority to a qualified applicant for local exchange service.

True, NTC MC No. 11-9-93 requires prior consultation with the NTC of the proposed serviceareas. As petitioners themselves argue, prior consultation allows the NTC to assess the impact ofthe proposed application on the viability of the local exchange operator in the area desired by the

would-be applicant and on the viability of the entire telecommunications industry as well as

rationalize the plans to minimize any adverse impact.[21]

In this case, prior consultation wassubstantially complied with and its purpose accomplished, when ICC filed its application and theNTC was given the opportunity to assess ICCs viability to render local exchange service in theManila and Navotas areas, and its impact on the telecommunications industry.

It is also true that NTC MC No. 8-9-95 allows a duly enfranchised entity to maintain a localexchange network if it is shown that an existing authorized local exchange operator fails to satisfy

the demand for local exchange service.[22]

In this case, the NTC noted the increasing rate in the

demand for local lines within the Manila and Navotas areas, and in order for these areas to catchup with its neighboring cities, installation of lines must be sped up.

[23]This, in fact, is tantamount to a

finding that the existing local exchange operator failed to meet the growing demand for local lines.

ICCs technical and financial capabilities, as well as the growth rate in the number of lines inparticular areas, are matters within NTCs competence and should be accorded respect. The NTCis given wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of its adjudicative functions,

and this includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within its special competence.[24]

TTPI anticipates that allowing ICC to enter its service areas will make it difficult for it to cross-subsidize its operations in the less profitable areas. Such argument, however, is futile. The cross-subsidy approach is apparently the governments response to the foreseen situation whereingiven its policy of universal access, a local exchange provider will find itself operating in areas

where the demand and the publics capacity to subscribe will be lesser than in other areas, makingthese areas more of a liability than an asset. Thus, Section 4 of E.O. No. 109 provides:

SEC. 4. Cross-Subsidy. Until universal access to basic telecommunications isachieved, and such service is priced to reflect actual costs, local exchangeservice shall continue to be cross-subsidized by other telecommunicationsservices within the same company.

Meanwhile, NTC MC No. 8-9-95 provides:

ACCESS CHARGES

GENERAL

(a) Until the local exchange service is priced reflecting actual costs, the local exchangeservice shall be cross-subsidized by other telecommunications services.

(c) The subsidy need by the LE service operator to earn a rate of return at parity withother segments of telecommunications industry shall be charged against the

international and domestic toll and CMTS interconnect services.[25]

Both issuances allow a local exchange operator to cross-subsidize its operations from its othertelecommunications services, and not solely on the revenues derived from the operators localexchange service.

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

7/9

Notably, R.A. No. 7617, as amended by R.A. No. 7674, grants TTPI the legislative franchise toinstall, operate and maintain telecommunications systems throughout the Philippines but not limitedto the operations of local exchange service or public switched network, public-calling stations,inter-exchange carrier or national toll transmission, value-added or enhanced services intelligentnetworks, mobile or personal communications services, international gateway facility, and paging

services, among others.[26]

From these services, TTPI has other sources of revenue from which itmay cross-subsidize its local exchange operations.

The Court, however, agrees with petitioners that the NTC erred when it failed to require ICC tomake an escrow deposit and a performance bond. Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93 specificallyprovides:

SEC. 27. Authorized public telecommunications carriers shall be required to depositin escrow in a reputable bank 20% of the investment required for the first twoyears of the implementation of the proposed project.

In addition to escrow, the authorized public telecommunications carriers shallbe required to post a performance bond equivalent to 10% of theinvestment required for the first two years of the approved project but not to

exceed P500 Million. The performance bond shall be forfeited in favor of thegovernment in the event that the authorized PTC fail to comply with the termsand conditions of the authority granted. (Emphases Ours)

The escrow deposit and the posting of a performance bond are required in each proposed and

approved project of a local exchange operator. Project refers to a planned undertaking.[27]

ICCsproject for local exchange service in the Manila and Navotas areas is separate and distinct from itsprojects in other areas; hence, the NTC should have directed ICC to submit such requirements.Evidently, the escrow deposit is required to ensure that there is available money on hand to defrayICCs expenditures for its project, while the performance bond will answer for the faithfulcompliance and performance of ICCs rollout obligation and to compensate the government for any

damages incurred in case of ICCs default. Without these, the government will be left holding anempty bag in the event ICC reneges in its rollout obligation.

Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93 is silent as to whether the posting of an escrow depositand performance bond is a condition sine qua non for the grant of a provisional authority. Whilethe provision uses the term shall, said directive pertains to the NTC, which shall require the publictelecommunications carrier to make such deposit and posting. In any event, records show that asof May 20, 2004, ICC has been granted an extension of its provisional authority up to November

10, 2006.[28]

Records also show that ICC has already been providing local exchange carrierservice in the areas concerned, having installed 16,000 lines in the City of Manila, 12,000 of whichhave already been subscribed, 624 lines in Caloocan City, all of which have been subscribed,

while the roll-out plan for facilities and provisioning in the City of Navotas is being finalized.[29]

Hence, so as not todisrupt ICCs rollout plan compliance, it would be more judicious for

theCourt to merely require ICC to comply with Section 27 of NTC MC No. 11-9-93, within suchperiod to be determined by the NTC.

Furthermore, it is well to stress that petitioner TTPI cannot claim any exclusive right to rendertelecommunications service in areas which the NTC considers to be in need of additionalproviders. R.A. No. 7925 is quite emphatic on this score, viz.:

SEC. 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry. Any advantage, favor,privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted,shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchises and shall beaccorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises: Provided, however,That the foregoing shall neither apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunicationsfranchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or thetype of service authorized by the franchise. (Emphasis Ours)

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

8/9

More than anything else, public service should be the primordial objective of local exchangeoperators. The entry of another provider in areas covered by TTPI should pose as a challenge forit to improve its quality of service. Ultimately, it will be the public that will benefit. As pointed out in

Republic of the Phils. vs. Rep. Telephone Co, Inc.:[30]

Free competition in the industry may also provide the answer to a much-desired improvement inthe quality and delivery of this type of public utility, to improved technology, fast and handy mobil

service, and reduced user dissatisfaction. After all, neither PLDT nor any other public utility has aconstitutional right to a monopoly position in view of the Constitutional proscription that no franchisecertificate 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).

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Order of theNational Telecommunications Commission dated November 10, 1997 in NTC Case No. 96-195 isAFFIRMED with the following modifications:

Respondent International Communication Corporation, in accordance with Section 27 of NTCMC No. 11-9-93, is required to:

(1) Deposit in escrow in a reputable bank 20% of the investment required for the firsttwo years of the implementation of the proposed project; and

(2) Post a performance bond equivalent to 10% of the investment required for the firsttwo years of the approved project but not to exceed P500 Million.

within such period to be determined by the National Telecommunications Commission.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

[1]Under E.O. No. 109, Section 1 (c), Local Exchange Carrier Service refers to a telecommunications service,

primarily but is not limited to voice-to-voice service, within a contiguous geographic area furnished toindividual subscribers under a common local exchange rate schedule.

[2]An International Gateway Facility (IGF) Operator is a public telecommunications carrier providing IGF services

consisting of international transmissions, switching and network management facilities which serve as point ofentry and exit in the Philippines of international traffic between the national network and point/s outside thePhilippines, per NTC MC No. 9-7-93, re: Guidelines on the Interconnection of Public TelecommunicationsCarriers.

[3]Entitled Guidelines on the Policy to Improve Local Exchange Carrier Service.

[4]Republic vs. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc. (Extelcom), G.R. Nos. 147210 & 147096 , January 15, 2002,

373 SCRA 316.

[5]Defined in NTC MC No. 8-9-95, as an authority for a limited period, granted to a qualified applicant to operate

and maintain a public telecommunications facility/service by the Commission, pending the grant of theCPCN.

[6]Docketed as NTC Case No. 96-195.

[7]Penned by Justice Ruben T. Reyes and concurred in by Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Eloy R. Bello,

Jr.

[8]CA Rollo, pp. 161-171.

[9]Rollo, p. 28.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jan2002/147096.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/nov1996/64888.htm

7/28/2019 10 etp vs icc

9/9

[10]Id., pp. 29-60.

[11]PLDT vs. NTC, G.R. No. 88404, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 717, 726.

[12]Extelcom case, supra., Note 4, p. 334.

[13]Id., p. 342.

[14]Rollo, pp. 164-165; NTC Order dated November 10, 1997, pp. 9-10.


[16]Ibid.

[17]Section 4 (f), Article II, Rep. Act No. 7925.

[18]G.R. No. 138295, August 28, 2003.

[19]Ibid.

[20] Saado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108338 , April 17, 2001, 356 SCRA 546, 558; citing De Leon,

Administrative Law: Text and Cases, 1993 ed., pp. 143-144.

[21]Rollo, p. 44; Petition, p. 36, citing the Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner Kintanar in NTC Order dated 28

October 1997, NTC Case No. 94-229.

[22]Provision on Local Exchange (LE) Services, (d).

[23]Rollo, p. 164; NTC Order dated November 10, 1997, p. 9.


[25]CMTS stands for Cellular Mobile Telephone System.

[26]

Section 1.[27]

Websters Third New International Dictionary, 1981 Ed.

[28]NTC Records, Volume 3.

[29]Ibid.

[30]G.R. No. 64888, November 28, 1996, 265 SCRA 1, 13, citing PLDT vs. NTC, 190 SCRA 717 (1990).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/apr2001/108338.htm

Documents

10 etp vs icc