TRANSPORTATION | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. v. NTC

May 29, 1987 Gutierrez alycat

SUMMARY: PRCI has been operating a radio communications system under a legislative franchise. Later, it established radio telegraph and radio telephone services. Kayumanggi was authorized to operate radio communications systems, and filed a complaint with the NTC, alleging that PRCI was operating without a certificate of public convenience and necessity. PRCI counter-alleged that its legislative franchise was license enough. NTC ordered RCPI to cease and desist from the operation of its radio telephone services. SC affirmed that RCPI has no authority to operate such services without the required certificate. DOCTRINE: A franchise cannot be exclusive in nature, nor can a franchise be granted except that it must be subject to amendment, alteration, or even repeal by the legislature, when the common good so requires. (Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1986 Constitution) FACTS: Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (PRCI) had been operating a radio communications system since 1957 under its legislative franchise granted by RA 2036. Later, it established radio telegraph and radio telephone services in Sorsogon, Mindoro, and Samar. Private respondent Kayumanggi Radio Network Incorporated (Kayumanggi) was authorized by NTC to operate radio communications systems in Samar and Mindoro.

Kayumanggi filed a complaint with the NTC, alleging that PRCI was operating in Samar and Mindoro without a certificate of public convenience and necessity. PRCI counter-alleged that its telephone services are covered by the legislative franchise, and that it has been in operation long before Kayumanggi filed its application to operate in the same places. NTC ordered RCPI to immediately cease or desist from the operation of its radio telephone services, stating that under EO 546, a certificate of public convenience is mandatory. RCPI filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUES: WON PRCI is exempt from complying with the requirement for a certificate of public convenience and necessity NO RCPIS ARGUMENT: The abolition of the Public Service Commission did not affect the applicable sections of the Public Service Law which exempted radio companies from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. RATIO: Pursuant to PD 1, the Public Service Commission was abolished and its functions were transferred to three specialized regulatory boards including the Board of Communications. With the enactment of EO 546, the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau were abolished, and their functions transferred to the National Telecommunications Commission. Sec. 15 of EO 546 shows that the exemption enjoyed by radio companies from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission and the Board of Communications no longer exists because of the changes effected by the Reorganization Law and implementing executive orders.

TRANSPORTATION | B2015 CASE DIGESTS

A franchise started out as a royal privilege. Today, a franchise, being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power, is subject to regulation by virtue of the states police power through its administrative agencies. In Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. Public Service Commission, the Court ruled that statutes enacted for the regulation of public utilities are applicable even to public utilities already established and in operation at the time of the passage of the statute. EO 546 is applicable to PRCI. It cannot install and operate radio telephone services on the basis of its legislative franchise alone. The position of PRCI that its legislative franchise is enough for it to operate a radio communications system anywhere in the Philippines is erroneous. Under Secs. 1 and 4 of EO 546, approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications was a precondition before PRCI could put up radio stations. Where the statutory norm speaks unequivocally, there is nothing for the courts to do except to apply it. The records of the case do not show any grant of authority from the then Secretary of Public Works and Communications before PRCI installed the radio telephone services. No certificate of public convenience and necessity appears to have been secured, when such certificate was required. It was well within the powers of the NTC to authorize the installation by Kayumanggi of its own radio communications systems. The mere fact that PRCI possesses a franchise to operate a radio communications system in certain areas is not an insuperable obstacle to the NTCs issuance of the proper certificate to an applicant desiring to extend the same services. A franchise cannot be exclusive in nature, nor can a franchise be granted except that it must be subject to amendment, alteration, or even

repeal by the legislature, when the common good so requires. (Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1986 Constitution) The Supreme Court finds no reason to disturb NTCs decision insofar as Kayumanggi was authorized to operate. The Commissions findings of fact, if supported by evidence, are conclusive upon the Court. PRCI has not shown any reason why Kayumanggi should be denied the authority to operate. It has not overcome the presumption that when Kayumanggi disturbed its monopoly, it was doing so pursuant to public interest and the common good. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the challenged order of the public respondent dated August 22, 1984 (the cease and desist order) is affirmed. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.