Bolinao Electronics Corporation v.

Valencia
G.R. No. L-20740
June 30, 1964
Bolinao Electronics Corporation (BEC), Chronicle Broadcasting Network (CBN), Inc., and Monserrat
Broadcasting System (MBS), Inc., vs. Brigido Valencia, Secretary of the Department of Public Works &
Communications (DPWC) and Robert San Andres of the Radio Control Division (RCD)
Justice Jesus Barrera
Petition
Prohibition, mandatory injunction with preliminary injunction
Issues
1. W the investigation being conducted by respondents, in connection with petitioners' applications for
renewal of their station licenses, has any legal basis;
2. W/N there was abandonment or renunciation by CBN of Channel 9 in favor of PBS;
3. W/N PBS can legally operate Channel 9 and is entitled to damages, for CBN's refusal to give up
operations thereof. (VETO-RELATED ISSUE)
Facts
Petitioners applied for a renewal of their station and operator licenses
Act 3846 (An Act Providing for the Regulation of Radio Stations and Radio Communications in the
Philippine Islands), amended by RA 584
Act 3846, Sec 3 Powers and duties of DPWC Secretary he/she may approve or disapprove any
application for renewal of station or operator license: Provided, however, that no application for renewal
shall be disapproved without giving the licensee a hearing
Respondents held an investigation intending to find out whether there is ground to disapprove the
applications for renewal just because of the alleged late filing of the petitions for renewal. (One
violation merits disapproval.)
Republic of the Philippines, as operator of Philippine Broadcasting System (PBS), = intervenor.
Issue #1: W the investigation being conducted by respondents, in connection with petitioners' applications for
renewal of their station licenses, has any legal basis. YES

Respondents exercise Act 3846, Sec 3 (as amended) to conduct an investigation/hearing on the
applications for renewal. Notices of hearing were sent to the petitioners
Petitioners aver that the violation ceased to exist after the act of late filing has been condoned or
pardoned by respondents by virtue of a July 24, 1962 Circular:
o Late filing of petitions for renewal, among others, was condoned if the necessary steps were taken
to correct their records and practices before August 10, 1962
SC: Apparently, all applications for renewal were made before said date, or even before the issuance of
the circular itself on July 24, 1962. The lone reason given for the investigation of petitioners' application
(that is, the late filing) is therefore no longer tenable.
Respondents aver that they have no authority to condone or pardon violations
SC: We dont think so.
o DPWC Secretary is given the discretion either to "bring criminal action against violators of the
radio laws or the regulations and confiscate the radio apparatus in case of illegal operation; or
simply suspend or revoke the offender's station or operator licenses or refuse to renew such
licenses; or just reprimand and warn the offenders."
o The cited circular specifically approved by the DPWC Undersecretary (who has not been shown
to have acted beyond his powers as such in representation of the Secretary of the Department)
warning the offenders, is an act authorized under the law.

The circular having been issued by respondents themselves, they can no longer claim its illegality
just to evade the effect of its enforcement.

Issue #2: W/N there was abandonment or renunciation by CBN of Channel 9 in favor of PBS. NO

Respondents: The statement "Channel 10 assigned in lieu of Channel 9", appearing in the construction
permit to transfer television station DZXL-TV (Channel 9) from Quezon City to Baguio City implies a
renunciation.
SC: No basis. It does not establish any agreement between the radio control authority and the station
operator, on the switch or change of operations of CBN from Channel 9 to Channel 10
o This was necessary to avoid interference of its broadcast with that of the Clark Air Force base
station in Pampanga which is operating on Channel 8
o Channel 10 would be assigned to petitioner only when the Baguio station starts to operate.
o Hence, there is no abandonment of rights to operate or broadcast.
Respondents aver that construction permit No. 793, bearing a remark that construction of the station shall
begin after Channel 9 CBNs permit to transfer, upon approval, would deem an abandonment of Channel
9
SC: Not again.
o Respondents actually admitted that they placed CBN in the said construction permit. (It should
just be Channel 9 as opposed to CBN; and a channel (number 9) is different from its operator
(CBN)), and also:
o CBN had no participation in making/preparing the permit! (inter alios acta = a non-party cannot
be adversely affected by a contract between two other parties)
o Hence, there is no abandonment.

Issue #3: W/N PBS can legally operate Channel 9 and is entitled to damages, for CBN's refusal to give up
operations thereof. NO

It cannot claim for damages because, since the intervenor have failed to prove the alleged agreement
between CBN and said intervenor on the exchange of use of Channels 9 and 10, no right belonging to
said intervenor had been violated by petitioner's refusal to give up its present operation of Channel 9.
However, it may also be added that as the records show, the appropriation to operate the Philippine
Broadcasting Service as approved by Congress and incorporated in the 1962-1963 Budget of the Republic
of the Philippines, was provided as follows:
Appropriations Act: Item Philippine Broadcasting Service General Fund
o Sec IV (1) (Special Purposes): For contribution to the operation of the Philippine Broadcasting
Service, including promotion, programming, operations and general administration; Provided,
That no portion of this appropriation shall be used for the operation of television stations in
Luzon or any part of the Philippines where there are television stations . . . PhP30,000
o Sec VI (5) (Special Provisions): No amount appropriated for televisions under Special Fund and
General Fund shall be used for the operation of television stations in Luzon or any part of the
Philippines where there are television stations." (Italics supplied.)
The President vetoed the conditions mentioned by each provision (not each provision as a whole).
SC: The President cant do that.
o When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the President
cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it
relates. (Art. VI, Sec. 20).
o What was vetoed was a condition (see underscores above) attached to the appropriation, not the
item itself
o Executive's veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions
(State v. Holder adhered to in subsequent cases)

Hence, the veto is unconstitutional.

Conclusion
Petition granted.