PLDT V NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

(1995, Feliciano)
FACTS:
Y
The Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (Eastern) is a holder of a
legislative franchise under RA No. 808. Together with other companies, Eastern
invested in the Philippines US$25m in submarine cable and related facilities and
maintains and operates submarine cables between the Philippines and HongkongJapan, Taiwan and Singapore.
Y
Eastern applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN),
to construct, maintain and operate an International Gateway Facility (IGF) with the
NTC.
o
An IGF connects domestic telephone/data networks to international
telephone/data networks.
Y
PLDT opposed the application for the CPCN and contended that an IGF is
inherently part of a telephone system and is not included in the franchise of
Eastern. Incidentally, PLDT is already operating 3 IGFs and that allowing Easterns
application will lead to an unnecessary duplication of facilities.
Y
Decision History: NTC ruled in favour of Eastern PLDT elevated to the
Supreme Court, SC ruled using PLDTs theory Motion for Reconsideration
ISSUE/s:
1.

Does Easterns franchise allow it to establish and operate the IGF?

2.
Can the NTCs interpretation of the extent of Easterns franchise be
disturbed?
HELD/RATIO:
1.
YES. Easterns legislative franchise authorizes the landing, constructing,
maintenance and operation of telecommunication systems, which the IGF forms
part of.

Eastern is not applying for the operation of a domestic telephone or other

telecommunication system to rival that of PLDTs. It is merely asking for the
operation of an international gateway facility that is important in the increasingly
globalizing world with Filipinos all over.

The NTC decision also stressed the compliance of the technical and financial
ability of Eastern to install, maintain and operate the facility.

PLDT cannot claim duplication of facilities when there were instances in

history where PLDT has provided inefficient services (17 hour lockdown, Hongkong
strike), which would be mitigated with a healthy market competition, as regulated
by NTC.

2.
NO. It is important to recall that NTC, as the governmental agency charged
with passing upon applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CPCNs) in the field of telecommunications, is authorized to determine what the
specific operating and technical requirements of "public convenience and necessity"
are in the field of telecommunications, subject of course to relevant limitations
established by legislative enactments, if any.

NTC is also authorized to examine and assess the legal, technical and
financial qualifications of an applicant for a CPCN and in doing so exercises the
special capabilities and skills and institutional experience it has accumulated.

Courts should not intervene in that administrative process, save upon a very
clearly showing of serious violation of law or of fraud, personal malice or wanton
oppression. Courts have none of the technical and economic or financial
competence which specialized administrative agencies have at their disposal, and in
particular must be wary of intervening in matters which are at their core technical
and economic in nature but disguised, more or less artfully, in the habiliments of a
"question of legal interpretation."

SEPARATE OPINION: Well, 5 justices dissented, but the opinions just have a single
sentence saying they deny the Motion for Reconsideration and consequentially,
uphold the previous ruling of the Court.