PCFI vs. NTC (216 Phil 185) (131 SCRA 200)

7/23/2019 PCFI vs. NTC (216 Phil 185) (131 SCRA 200)

1/5

3Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-63318 November 25, 1983

PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS OUN!"TION, INC., petitioner,vs.N"TION"L TELECOMMUNIC"TIONS COMMISSION "N!PHILIPPINE LONG !IST"NCE TELEPHONECOMP"N#, respondents.

Tomas C. Llamas for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondent NTC.

Graciano C. Regala and Eliseo B. Alampay for respondent PLDT.

RELO$", J.:+.wph!1

Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside and annul the decision,dated November , !"#, of public respondent National$elecommunications Commission %N$C, for short&, approving theapplication of the Philippine 'ong (istance $elephone Compan)%P'($, for short& of its revised schedule for its *ubscriber +nvestmentPlan %*+P& for the entire service area, including the e-RE$E'Carea/ as 0ell as the order of 1anuar) !2, !"#3 0hich denied themotion for reconsideration of petitioner Philippine Consumers4oundation, +nc. %PC4+, for short&.

Records sho0 that on March 5, !"#5, private respondent P'($filed an application 0ith the N$C for the approval of a revisedschedule for its *ubscriber +nvestment Plan %*+P&, docketed as CaseNo. #-6.

n April !2, !"#, the N$C issued an e-parte order provisionall)approving the revised schedule 0hich, ho0ever, 0as set aside b)this Court on August 3!, !"# in the case of Sam!el Ba!tista "s.NTC# et al.# !!7 *CRA 2!!. $he Court therein ruled that 8there 0asnecessit) of a hearing b) the Commission before it should haveacted on the application of the P'($ so that the public could air itsopposition, particularl) the herein petitioner and the *olicitor9eneral, representing the government. $he) should be given theopportunit) to substantiate their ob:ection that the rates under thesubscriber investment plan are ecessive and unreasonable and, asa conse;uence, the lo0 income and middle class group cannotafford to have telephone connections/ and, that there is no need to

increase the rate because the applicant is financiall) sound.8

n November , !"#, the N$C rendered the ;uestioned decisionpermanentl) approving P'($


2/5

RE>+*E( *+P *C@E('E

*ervice Categor) Revised *+P Rates

Metro Manila Provincial t$%.&'h()*&

!. Ne0 +nstallations D

!. PBFPAB $runk P ,555 P3,555

. Business Phone=

*ingle line 3,55 ,555

Part) line ,555 !,755

3. Residential Phone=

*ingle line !,#55 !,355

Part) line "55 #55

2. 'eased 'ine ,55 ,55

. $ie trunk or tie line ,55 ,55

7. utside local ,55 ,55

++. $ransfers D

!. PBFPAB !,55 !,55

. Business Phone=

*ingle line #55 755

Part) line 755 55

3. Residential Phone=

*ingle line 755 55

Part) line 55 355

2. 'eased 'ine #55 #55

Revised *+P Rates

Metro Manila Provincial

. $ie trunk or tie line P#55 P#55

7. utside 'ocal #55 #55

%pp. 32-3, Rollo&

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above :udgment on(ecember !2, !"#, and after a month, or on 1anuar) !2, !"#3,N$C denied said motion for reconsideration.

+t is the submission of petitioner that the *+P schedule presented b)the P'($ is pre-mature and, therefore, illegal and baseless, becausethe N$C has not )et promulgated the re;uired rules and regulations

implementing *ection of Presidential (ecree No. !6 0hichprovides= t$%.&'h()*&

*ection . $he (epartment of Public ?orks,$ransportation and Communications throughits Board of Comm!nications and+or appropriateagency shall see to it that the herein declared

policies for the telephone ind!stry are immediatelyimplemented and for this p!rpose pertinent r!les

2


3/5

and reg!lations may ,e prom!lgated ... %Emphasissupplied&.

Petitioner avers that the 8substitute procedural vehicle utiliGed b)N$C in allo0ing the establishment of *+P b) P'($ 0as b) treating

the appropriate Petition of P'($ as if the same 0ere a ratecase over 0hich the Rules of Practice 0as applicable. N$Cproceeded to invoke the summar) po0ers provided for in the Rulesof Practice to full) bear on the hapless consumer, notabl) therepressive


4/5

companies. @ence, 0hile P.(. !6 encourages theprofitabilit) of public telecommunication companies,the Public *ervice Act limits the same.

. +n the absence of such rules and regulations,

there is outright confusion among the rights of P'($,the consumers and the government itself. As ma)clearl) be seen, ho0 can the (ecision be said tohave assured that most of the population 0ill en:o)telephone facilitiesH (id the (ecision like0ise assurethe f inancial viabili t) of P'($H ?as thegovernmenticente Abad *antos in the case of Bautista vs. N$C %supra& that8the P'($ 0hich is reported to have made over !55 million pesos inprofits in :ust si months but 0ith its service so poor that even the4irst 'ad) has taken notice should think of improved service beforeincreased profits.8

+ndeed, let t us not aggravate the situation of the populace b) raisingthe revised *+P schedule plan of the P'($. A rate increase 0ould bean additional burden on the telephone subscribers. $he plan toepand the compan) program andFor improve its service is laudable,but the epenses should not be shouldered b) the telephonesubscribers. Considering the multi-million profits of the compan), thecost of epansion andFor improvement should come from part of itshuge profits.

Anent the ;uestion that petitioner should have appealed the decisionof respondent N$C, instead of filing the instant petition, suffice it to

sa) that certiorari is available despite eistence of the remed) ofappeal 0here public 0elfare and the advancement of public polic) sodictate, or the orders complained of 0ere issued in ecess of or0ithout :urisdiction %1ose vs. Iulueta, *CRA 62&.

ACCR(+N9'J, the (EC+*+N of the public respondent National$elecommunications Commission, dated November , !"#, andthe R(ER dated 1anuar) !2, !"#3. are hereb) ANN''E( and*E$ A*+(E.

4


5/5

* R(ERE(.15)ph61.%7t

P%&'. Co()*mer o*(+&o( v). N&o(' Te'eomm*(&&o(

Comm&))&o( (+ PL!T

)/

n March 5, !"#5, P'($ filed an application 0ith N$C for the approval of aRevised *chedule for its subscribers +nvestment Plan %*+P&. Conse;uentl), N$Cissued an e-parte order 0hich provisionall) approved the application. @o0ever,the approval 0as set aside on the *upreme Court Kruled that 8there 0as necessit)of a hearing b) the commission before it should have acted on the application ofthe P'($ so that public could air it

Documents

PCFI vs. NTC (216 Phil 185) (131 SCRA 200)