Case Digest: Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 316, G.R. No. 147096

 

Republic vs. Express Telecom, 373 SCRA 316, G.R. No. 147096, January 15, 2002

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

In 1992, Bayantel filed an application with the NTC for a Certificate of Public Convenience or Necessity (CPCN) to operate a CMTS.

On May 17, 1999, Bayantel filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Revive Case, citing the availability of new frequency bands for CMTS operators, as provided for under Memorandum Circular No. 3-3-99.

On February 1, 2000, the NTC granted BayanTel's motion to revive the latter's application and set the case for hearings. Extelcom filed in NTC an Opposition (With Motion to Dismiss) praying for the dismissal of Bayantel's application and alleged that there was no public need for the service applied for by Bayantel.

On May 3, 2000, the NTC issued an Order granting in favor of Bayantel a provisional authority to operate CMTS service. With this, Extelcom filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking the annulment of the NTC’s order.

On September 13, 2000, the Court of Appeals granted the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for by Extelcom. The orders of NTC were annulled and set aside and the Amended Application of respondent Bayantel is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new CMTS application.

Bayantel filed a motion for reconsideration. NTC, represented by OSG, also filed its own motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, Extelcom filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, praying that NTC Memorandum Circular No. 9-3-2000 be also declared null and void.  CA denied all of the motions for reconsideration of the parties for lack of merit. Hence, the NTC and Bayantel filed separate petitions for review.

ISSUE

Whether or not CA seriously erred in declaring the May 3, 2000 order granting Bayantel a provisional authority should be set aside and reversed.

RULING

Yes, CA seriously erred in declaring the May 3, 2000 order granting Bayantel a provisional authority should be set aside and reversed.

Section 16 of the Public Service Act authorizes the then PSC, upon notice and hearing, to issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of public services within the Philippines "whenever the Commission finds that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interests in a proper and suitable manner."

Section 29 of the Public Service Act states that all hearings and investigations before the Commission shall be governed by rules adopted by the Commission, and in the conduct thereof, the Commission shall not be bound by the technical rules of legal evidence.

In this case, the Court of Appeals erred in annulling the Order of the NTC dated May 3, 2000, granting Bayantel a provisional authority to install, operate and maintain CMTS. The general rule is that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. The established exception to the rule is where the issuing authority has gone beyond its statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion. None of these obtains in the case at bar.