Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 183 views

    Digest Eastern Telecomvs. ICC

    Uploaded by

    Bern Moncupa
    G.R. No. 162015 March 6, 2006 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, DR. VICTOR B. ENRIGA, vs. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Digest Eastern Telecomvs. ICC

    Uploaded by

    Bern Moncupa
    183 views2 pages
    G.R. No. 162015 March 6, 2006 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, DR. VICTOR B. ENRIGA, vs. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

    Original Title

    digest Eastern Telecomvs. ICC.docx

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    G.R. No. 162015 March 6, 2006 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, DR. VICTOR B. ENRIGA, vs. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    183 views2 pages

    Digest Eastern Telecomvs. ICC

    Uploaded by

    Bern Moncupa
    G.R. No. 162015 March 6, 2006 THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY, AND THE CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY, DR. VICTOR B. ENRIGA, vs. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    135992

    July 23, 2004

    EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. and TELECOMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., vs. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION CORPORATION,

    FACTS: Taking advantage of the opportunities brought about by the passage of these laws, several IGF operators applied for CPCN to install, operate and maintain local exchange carrier services in certain areas. Respondent International Communication Corporation, now known as Bayan Telecommunications Corporation or Bayantel,4applied for and was given by the NTC a Provisional Authority (PA) 5 on March 3, 1995, to install, operate and provide local exchange service in Quezon City, Malabon and Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the entire Bicol region. Meanwhile, petitioner Telecommunications Technologies Philippines, Inc. (TTPI), as an affiliate of petitioner Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), was granted by the NTC a PA on September 25, 1996, to install, operate and maintain a local exchange service in the Provinces of Batanes, Cagayan Valley, Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, Nueva Vizcaya, Ifugao, Quirino, the cities of Manila and Caloocan, and the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila. It appears, however, that before TTPI was able to fully accomplish its rollout obligation, ICC applied for and was given a PA by the NTC on November 10, 1997, to install, operate and maintain a local exchange service in Manila and Navotas,6 two areas which were already covered by TTPI under its PA dated September 25, 1996. Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals with application for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 46047, arguing that the NTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting a provisional authority to respondent ICC to operate in areas already assigned to TTPI. On April 30, 1998, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review on the ground that the NTC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in granting the PA to TTPI. It sustained the NTC's finding that ICC is "legally and financially competent and its network plan technically feasible." The Court of Appeals also ruled that there was no violation of the equal protection clause because the PA granted to ICC and TTPI were given under different situations and there is no point of comparison between the two.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals committed a serious error of law in upholding the Order of the NTC granting a PA to Respondent to operate LEC services in Manila and Navotas which are areas already assigned to petitioner TTPI under a prior and subsisting PA.

    HELD:

    After a review of the records of this case, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion committed by the Court of Appeals in sustaining the NTC's grant of provisional authority to ICC. The power of the NTC to grant a provisional authority has long been settled. As the regulatory agency of the national government with jurisdiction over all telecommunications entities, it is clothed with authority and given ample discretion to grant a provisional permit or authority.11 It also has the authority to issue Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the installation, operation, and maintenance of communications facilities and services, radio communications systems, telephone and telegraph systems, including the authority to determine the areas of operations of applicants for telecommunications services. In this regard, the NTC is clothed with sufficient discretion to act on matters solely within its competence.

    You might also like