PLDT vs. NTC and CELLCOM, Inc.G. R. No. 88404Oct. 18, 1990FACTS Petitioner PLDT assailed two orders of public respondent National TelecommunicationsCommission granting private respondent Express Telecommunications (ETCI) provisionalautorit! to install" operate and maintain a Cellular #obile Telepone $!stem in #etro #anilanow ETCI in accordance wit specific conditions on te following grounds% &' ETCI is not capacitated or (ualified under its legislative francise to operate a s!stem)wide telepone or networ* of telepone service suc as te one proposed in itsapplication% +' ETCI lac*s te facilities needed and indispensable to te successful operation of teproposed cellular mobile telepone s!stem% ,' PLDT as its pending application wit NTC Case No -.)-." to install and operate aCellular#obileTelepone$!stemfordomesticandinternational servicenot onl!in#anila but also in te provinces and tat under te /prior operator0 or /protection ofinvestment0 doctrine" PLDT as te priorit! preference in te operation of suc service%and 1' Te provisional autorit!" if granted" will result in needless" uneconomical" andarmful duplication" among oters' 2fter evaluating te consideration sougt b! te PLDT" te NTC" maintained its rulingtat liberall! construed" applicant3s francise carries wit it te privilege to operate and maintaina cellular mobile telepone service' $ubse(uentl!" PLDT alleged essentiall! tat teinterconnectionorderedwas inviolationof due process andtat te grant of provisionalautorit! was 4urisdictionall! and procedurall! infirm' 5owever" NTC denied tereconsideration' ISS!E6eter or not te contention of PLDT is tenable' "ELD Petitionisdismissedforlac*ofmerit'Terecanbeno(uestiontatteNTCisteregulator!agenc!of tenational government wit4urisdictionover all telecommunicationsentities' It islegall!cloted wit autorit!andgivenample discretion tograntaprovisionalpermit or autorit!' In fact" NTC ma!" on its own initiative" grant suc relief even in te absenceof a motion from an applicant' 7ep' 2ct No' +898 grants ETCI (formerl! :2CI) ;te rigt andprivilegeofconstructing" installing" establisingandoperatinginteentirePilippinesradiostations for reception and transmission of messages on radio stations in te foreign and domesticpublic fixed point)to)point and public base" aeronautical and land mobile stations" ''' wit tecorresponding rela! stations for te reception and transmission of wireless messages onradiotelegrap! andation' 6at transpired in ETCI were a series of transfers of sares startingin&9.1until &9-?' Teapproval of teNTCma!bedeemedtoavebeenmet wenitautori>ed te issuance of te provisional autorit! to ETCI' f' PLDT cannot 4ustifiabl! refuse tointerconnect' 7ep' 2ct No' .-19" or te#unicipal Telepone2ct of &9-9" approvedon-:ebruar! &998" mandates interconnection providing as it does tat ;all domestictelecommunications carriers or utilities ''' sall be interconnected to te public switc teleponenetwor*'; $ucregulationof te useand ownersipof telecommunicationss!stems isinteexercise of te plenar! police power of te $tate for te promotion of te general welfare' Te&9-? Constitution recogni>es te existence of tat power wen it provides'GMCR, Inc., S#a$t T%&%co#s, Inc., Int%$na& Co##'n(cat(on, Inc., Is&a Co#, vs. )%&&T%&%co#, %t a&.G. R. No. 1*+49+A,$(& -0, 199..FACTS @ell Telecommunications (@ellTel) filed before te National TelecommunicationsCommission (NTC) anapplication for a Certificate of Public Convenience andNecessit!(CPCN)toprocure" install" operateandmaintainNationwideIntegratedTelecommunications$ervices (NIT$) andaProvisional 2utorit!(P2) toeffect suc' Duringsucapplication"@ellTel as not been given a legislative francise to engage in te telecoms service wic madeinunabletoparticipateintedeliberationsforserviceareaassignmentsforlocal excangecarrier service (LEC) were te petitioners above participated in' $ubse(uentl!" 72 ?.9+ wasenacted granting @ellTel a congressional francise' An &+ Bul! &991" @ellTel filed a second application for a certificate of publicconvenience" proposing to install +'. million telepone lines in &8!ears and to provide a &88Cdigital local excange networ* (NTC Case91)++9)' It also moved for te witdrawal of te firstapplication" witout pre4udice" wic was granted b! te NTC' @ellTel3s application (+nd ) wasopposedb!various telecommunicationcompanies' @ellTel3sapplicationwasreferredtoteCommon Carriers 2utori>ation Department (CC2D)" wic found @ellTel3s proposaltecnicall! feasible and @ellTel to be financiall! capable' Te two deput! commissioners of teNTC signified teir approval of te CC2D recommendation' Te wor*ing draft was prepared b!te legal department" was initialed b! te two deput! commissioners" but was not signed b! NTCCommissioner $imeonDintanar' Te petitioners (uestionedte validit!of te P2becauseaccording to tem it is te prevailing polic! and procedure in te NTC tat te Commissioneras te exclusive autorit! to sign" validate and promulgate an! and all orders" resolutions anddecisions of te NTC and onl! is vote counts' @ellTel filed two motions to resolve te application and te issuance of te P2 but teNTC did not act on it' In tat relation te petitioners filed an Apposition' Commissioner Dintanarissued an Arder setting said motions for earing but did not resolve said motions' 5owever" noearing was conducted and it was resceduled'@ellTel filed a motion to promulgate" after previousl! filing two urgentex)parte motion toresolve application" wic was not acted upon b! te NTC' An 1 Bul! &99E" te NTC denied temotion in an order signed solel! b! Commissioner Dintanar' An &? Bul! &99E" @ellTel filed apetition for certiorari" mandamus and proibition against NTC before te $upreme Court' TeCourt referred te case to te Court of 2ppeals pursuant to Paragrap &" $ection 9 of @P &+9'Te Court of 2ppeals granted @ellTel3s position' 5ence" te petitions for review b! te opposingtelecommunication companies and Commissioner Dintanar'ISS!E6eter te vote of te Cairman of te Commission is sufficient to legall! render anNTC order" resolution or decision'"ELD5aving been organi>ed under Executive Arder &1. as a tree)man commission" te NTCis a collegial bod! and was a collegial bod! even during te time it was acting as a one)manregime' NTCis a collegial bod!re(uiring a ma4orit!vote out of tree members of tecommission inorderto validl! decides a caseoran! incidentterein'Te votealone of tecairman of te Commission" absent te re(uired concurring vote coming from te rest of temembersip of te commission to at least arrive at a ma4orit! decision" is not sufficient to legall!render anNTCorder" resolutionor decision' EAE1." wiccreatedte NTCunder te#inistriesofPublic6or*sandofTransportationandCommunication" doesnot specificall!provide tat te NTC is not a collegiate bod! nor did it mention tat NTC sould meet En @ancindecidingits case or(uasi)4udicial functions' 5owever" tis does not militate against tecollegial nature of te NTC because te 7ules of Procedure and Practice applied b! te NTC inits proceedings states tat in cases eard b! te @oard En @anc" te resolution or order sould bereaced wit te concurrence of at least two regular members after deliberation and consultation'NTC Circulars &)&)9," ,)&)9, and te Arder of Dintanar" declaring te NTC as a single entit! ornon)collegial entit!" are contrar! to law and tus are null and void'Arellano University School of LawCASE DIGESTSINTELECOMS LAWSubmitted to: Atty. Gozon.Submitted by: Richard q. Ganibe Jr.ate Submitted: !ay "#$ "%&'