GMRC, Inc. et al v. Bell Telecoms, et al

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. 126496. April 30, 1997

GMCR, INC.; SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; ISLA COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC., Petitioners, vs. BELL TELECOMMUNICATION PHILIPPINES, INC.; THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and HON. SIMEON L. KINTANAR in his official capacity as Commissioner of the National Telecommunications, Respondents.

G.R. No. 126526. April 30, 1997

COMMISSIONER SIMEON L. KINTANAR, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner, vs. BELL TELECOMMUNICATION PHILIPPINES, INC., respondent.

Facts:

In 1993, private respondent Bell Telecommunication Philippines, Inc. (BellTel) filed with the NTC an Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Procure (CPNP) to install, operate and maintain a Nationwide Integrated Telecommunications Services and to Charge Rates, and with further request for the issuance of Provisional Authority (PA).

Since BellTel was, at that time, an unenfranchised applicant, it was excluded in the deliberations for service area assignments for local exchange carrier service.

Only petitioners GMCR, Inc., Smart Communications, Inc., Isla Communications Co., Inc. and International Communications Corporation, among others, were beneficiaries of formal awards of service area assignments in April and May, 1994.

With the enactment of Republic Act No. 7692 on March 25, 1994, BellTel was granted a congressional franchise to carry on the business of providing telecommunications services in and around the country.

The following year of July 1994, said respondent filed with NTC a second application for the issuance of CPCN for its local and international interconnection under an integrated system.

After presenting its pieces of evidence and cross-examined by the oppositors in the proceedings, BellTel later filed its Formal Offer of Evidence together with all the technical, financial and legal documents in support of its application. Pursuant to its rules, the application was referred to the Common Carriers Authorization Department (CCAD) for study and recommendation.

Agreeing with the findings and recommendations of the CCAD, NTC Deputy Commissioners Fidelo Dumlao and Consuelo Perez adopted the same and expressly signified their approval of the Memorandum of the CCAD dated February 6, 1995. The draft was initialed by Deputy Commissioners Fidelo Q. Dumlao and Consuelo Perez but was not signed by Commissioner Simeon Kintanar.

Issue:

Whether or not the NTC is a collegial body under Executive Order No. 546

Held:

In the interim, the Solicitor General filed with the respondent appellate court a Manifestation In Lieu of Comment in which the Solicitor General took a legal position adverse to that of the NTC. The Solicitor General, after a close examination of the laws creating the NTC and its predecessors and a studious analysis of certain Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) orders, NTC circulars, and Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinions pertinent to the issue of collegiality of the NTC, made the following recommendations:

(a) declare respondent National Telecommunications Commission as a collegial body;

(b) restrain respondent Commissioner Simeon Kintanar from arrogating unto himself alone the powers of the said agency;

(c) order NTC, acting as a collegial body, to resolve petitioner Bell Telecoms application under NTC-94-229;

(d) declare NTC Memorandum Circulars 1-1-93 and 3-1-93 as void; [and]

(e) uphold the legality of DOTC Department Order 92-614.

The more critical point that matters most, however, is that Court cannot be diverted from the principal issue in this case concerning the collegiality of the NTC.