G.R. No. L-52819 - OCTOBER 1980 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-52819October 2, 1980 Philippine Global Communications, Inc. vs. Benjamin Relova A.M. No. 1833-CFIOctober 10, 1980 Virgilio V. Dionisio vs. Emilio V. Salas A.M. No. 2356-CTJOctober 10, 1980 Philippine Trial Lawyers Asso. Inc. vs. Simeon I. Garcia A.M. No. P-2067October 10, 1980 Emelina M. Salgado vs. Belen M. Cortez G.R. No. L-28535October 10, 1980 Solicitor General vs. Abundio P. Garrido G.R. No. L-38339October 10, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Quirico Egasta Albarico G.R. No. L-38719October 10, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Perez Y Mendoza G.R. No. L-43528-29 & L-48067October 10, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Labrinto A.M. No. 1006October 17, 1980 Luisa Ocampo vs. Mauro N. Dominguez A.M. No. 1765-CFIOctober 17, 1980 Arnaldo R. Borre vs. Felix L. Moya G.R. No. L-48510October 17, 1980 Associated Labor Unions vs. Sec. of Labor G.R. No. L-52688October 17, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Honorato Ambal G.R. No. L-53788October 17, 1980 Pharma Industries, Inc. vs. Meliton Pajarillaga G.R. No. L-54416October 17, 1980 Capitol Rural Bank vs. Meridian Assurance Corp. G.R. No. L-25698October 23, 1980 Perpetua Buhain Vda. De Mintu vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-43259October 23, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Simeon B. Dilao G.R. No. L-47694October 23, 1980 Alliance Sales Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-46236October 24, 1980 Filoil Refinery Corp. vs. Marcelino N. Sayo A.M. No. P-2364October 27, 1980 Philippine Trial Lawyers Asso., Inc. vs. Humberto B. Basco G.R. No. L-48488October 27, 1980 Gloria D. Menez vs. Employees' Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-31178October 28, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Cabrera G.R. No. L-33281October 28, 1980 Gorgonia B. Luding vs. Jesus N. Borromeo G.R. No. L-43220October 28, 1980 Canuto Cadiente vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm. G.R. No. L-43679October 28, 1980 Leonardo N. Azarcon vs. Leopoldo Vallarta G.R. No. L-52235October 28, 1980 Jose D. Calderon, Sr., vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-54171October 28, 1980 Jewel Villacorta vs. Insurance Comm. G.R. No. L-32423October 29, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Diosdado De Atras G.R. No. L-38457October 29, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Ariola G.R. No. L-45272October 29, 1980 Juanita Q. De Guzman vs. Republic of the Phil. A.M. No. 491-MJOctober 30, 1980 Primitivo Santos vs. Arturo E. Cruz G.R. No. L-25393October 30, 1980 Fernando Go vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-26686 & L-26698October 30, 1980 Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Com. of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-32978October 30, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Andres Magallano G.R. No. L-33767October 30, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio G. Reyes G.R. No. L-35560October 30, 1980 A-One Feeds, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44190October 30, 1980 Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-45418October 30, 1980 Teofista P. Tinitigan vs. Severino Tinitigan, Sr. G.R. No. L-46545October 30, 1980 Susana M. Leal vs. Employees Compensation Commission G.R. No.L-47674October 30, 1980 Santiago Ong vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-51078October 30, 1980 Cristina De Knecht vs. Pedro Jl. Bautista G.R. No. L-51759October 30, 1980 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano P. Fuentebella G.R. No. L-52056October 30, 1980 Bonifacio De Leon vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-54230October 30, 1980 Felino Maquinay vs. Ildefonso M. Bleza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Philippine Global Communications, Inc. vs. Benjamin Relova Virgilio V. Dionisio vs. Emilio V. Salas Philippine Trial Lawyers Asso. Inc. vs. Simeon I. Garcia Emelina M. Salgado vs. Belen M. Cortez Solicitor General vs. Abundio P. Garrido People of the Philippines vs. Quirico Egasta Albarico People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Perez Y Mendoza People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Labrinto Luisa Ocampo vs. Mauro N. Dominguez Arnaldo R. Borre vs. Felix L. Moya Associated Labor Unions vs. Sec. of Labor People of the Philippines vs. Honorato Ambal Pharma Industries, Inc. vs. Meliton Pajarillaga Capitol Rural Bank vs. Meridian Assurance Corp. Perpetua Buhain Vda. De Mintu vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Simeon B. Dilao Alliance Sales Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Filoil Refinery Corp. vs. Marcelino N. Sayo Philippine Trial Lawyers Asso., Inc. vs. Humberto B. Basco Gloria D. Menez vs. Employees' Compensation Com. People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Cabrera Gorgonia B. Luding vs. Jesus N. Borromeo Canuto Cadiente vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm. Leonardo N. Azarcon vs. Leopoldo Vallarta Jose D. Calderon, Sr., vs. Court of Appeals Jewel Villacorta vs. Insurance Comm. People of the Philippines vs. Diosdado De Atras People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Ariola Juanita Q. De Guzman vs. Republic of the Phil. Primitivo Santos vs. Arturo E. Cruz Fernando Go vs. Court of Appeals Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. Com. of Internal Revenue People of the Philippines vs. Andres Magallano People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio G. Reyes A-One Feeds, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Teofista P. Tinitigan vs. Severino Tinitigan, Sr. Susana M. Leal vs. Employees Compensation Commission Santiago Ong vs. Court of Appeals Cristina De Knecht vs. Pedro Jl. Bautista People of the Philippines vs. Mariano P. Fuentebella Bonifacio De Leon vs. National Labor Relations Commission Felino Maquinay vs. Ildefonso M. Bleza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-52819 October 2, 1980
PHILIPPINE GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE BENJAMIN RELOVA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of First instance of Manila, Branch XI, PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION, CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. and RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,respondents.
FERNANDO,C.J.:
The competence of respondent Judge Benjamin Relova1to act on a matter, which, according to petitioner Philippine Global Communications, Inc., should be appropriated dealth with by the Board of Communications, is the issue that has to be resolved by the Court in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding. Petitioner filed on May 10, 1976 with the Board of Telecommunications an application for authority to establish a branch or station in Cebu City "for the purpose of rendering international telecommunications services from Cebu City to any point outside the Philippines where it is authorized to operate.2The Solicitor General and private respondents opposed such application.3Thereafter, on March 9, 1979, the Board of Communications rendered a decision, recognizing the right of petitioners under its legislative franchise to establish branches or stations anywhere in the Philippines, subject to its prior approval.4A joint motion for reconsideration, dated June 14, 1979, came from private respondents, followed as could be expected by an opposition from petitioner.5In a reply to such opposition, private respondents put in issue the jurisdiction of the Board of Communications, now the National Telecommunications Commission, to act on such application. Such motion is still pending.6On August 27, 1979, private respondents filed before respondent Judge an action for declaratory judgment to ascertain the scope and coverage of the legislative franchise of petitioner, it was ratified to Branch XI, presided by respondent Judge.7
There was a motion to dismiss by petitioner on the ground that the question raised in such suit pertained to the National Telecommunications Commission, the body with primary jurisdiction.8Private respondents in submitted their opposition, with a reply from petitioner and a rejoinder to such pleading from respondents.9Respondent Judge, in an order dated January 15, 1980, denied petitioner's motion to dismiss as in his opinion the ground relied is not indubitable.10Hence this certiorari and prohibition proceeding.
On March 6, 1980, two days after the certiorari proceeding was filed, this Court issued the following resolution: "Considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with prayer for a restraining order, the Court Resolved (a) to require the respondents to file an [Answer] within ten (10) days from notice and not to move to dismiss the petition and (b) to [Issue a Temporary Restraining Order], effective as of this date and continuing until otherwise ordered by the Court."11Thereafter on April 21, 1980, a joint answer was filed by the respondents. It met the issue squarely. Their principal contention is that what confronts this Court is not the question of primary jurisdiction as it challenged such jurisdiction of the National Telecommunications Commission. It made clear that from the very legislative franchise of petitioner Philippine Global Communications, Inc. the right to establish a branch or station in Cebu City "for the purpose of rendering international telecommunications services" from such city to any point outside the Philippines is to say the least, debatable. The matter is far from clear. Its franchise does not, in express terms, grant it. What is worse, to quote from its answer: "... petitioner, being an 'International record carrier' is authorized to engage only in international communications service. Now, private respondents take the position that since Section 1 of Republic Act No. 4617 [the franchise in question] limits ingress and egress of [petitioner's] messages or signals only thru a 'Sole Gateway' (Manila) or only thru '[any point]' or single location in the Philippines, therefore: a.) [petitioner] cannot establish branches or distribution systems (direct connections to end-users) at any other point or locality within the country for the purpose of transmitting and receiving messages between the gateway (Manila) and these branches or stations located say, at Cebu or Davao. [For that is to constitute] domestic service within the context of [its] franchise; b.) [Petitioner] cannot even establish distribution systems in Manila other than its main office or gateway to transmit and receive messages to or from the end-users destined for external transmission; this phase of operation (between the main office at gateway to the distribution system or individual equipment installed in the end-users' offices in Manila) being 'domestic service'; c.) Assuming arguendo, that [petitioner] shall not charge any additional fee for the extra service mentioned does not detract from the fact that the same still constitutes 'domestic service' since they are rendered from one point in the Philippines to another point within the same country.12
The issue is thus clear-cut and well-defined. Considering the question raised, is this a case appropriate for a suit for declaratory relief which falls within the competence of the Judiciary or is this a case calling for the applicability of the concept of primary jurisdiction thus necessitating an action by the administrative agency concerned before resort to a judicial remedy? To our mind, the answer is that a suit for declaratory relief lies and, therefore, the petition must be dismissed.
1. Reliance is placed by petitioners on Quintos, Jr. vs. National Stud Farm13It is undoubted that fidelity to the basic concept of exhausting administrative remedies calls for the equally fundamental principle of junction to be respected. Petitioner, however, could not dissipate the well founded doubt as to whether its legislative franchise justitifies its plea to establish the branch or station in question. There is no need to repeat what has been set forth in the answer to the effect that there was such a limitation concerning the ingress and egress of its messages or signals only thru a "sole gateway" (Manila) or only thru any point or single location in the Philippines. Absent such clarity as to the scope and coverage of its franchise a legal question arises which is more appropriate for the judiciary than for an administrative agency to resolve. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction calls for application when there is such competence to act on the part of an administrative body. Petitioner assumes that such is the case. That is to beg the question. There is merit, therefore, to the approach taken by private respondents to seek judicial remedy as to whether or not the legislative franchise could be so interpreted as to enable the National Telecommunications Commission to act on the matter. A jurisdictional question thus arises and calls for an answer.
2. The conclusion reached is reinforced by the nature of the assailed order of respondent Judge.ℒαwρhi৷It was merely a denial of a motion to dismiss the suit for declaratory relief for the reason that the ground relied upon "is not indubitable." There is thus the appearance and the reality of an unseemly haste in which the matter was brought to this Court considering that the well-known doctrine that certiorari to be available as set forth inPanaligan vs. Adolfo,14requires a showing of "a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions."15
3. Nor does it avail petitioners that a motion for reconsideration by private respondents still pending before the National Telecommunications Commission. Reliance on the doctrine of ripeness for judicial review is not always attended with success. Precisely, inArrow Transportation Corp. vs. Board of Transportation,16the mere fact that at the time the case was elevated to this Court, a motion for reconsideration was still pending with respondent Board did not suffice to preclude a rulling on the decisive question raised. A noted authority on Administrative Law, Professor Kenneth Culp Davis, was referred to as being "of the view that the resolution of what could be a debilitating uncertainty with the conceded ability of the judiciary to work out a solution of the problem posed is a potent argument for minimizing the emphasis laid on its technical aspect.17An excerpt from Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. Santiago,18is even more persuasive as to why the stage has been reached for the judiciary to act considering that the question raised is one of jurisdiction. Thus: "Except for constitutional officials who can trace their competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a public official must locate in the statute relied upon a grant of power before he can exercise it. It need not be express. It may be implied from the wording of the law. Absent such a requisite, however, no warrant exists for the assumption of authority. The act performed, if properly challenged, cannot meet the test of validity It must be set aside. So it must be in these two petitions. That is to defer to a principle reiterated by this Court time and time again.19
WHEREFORE,the petition tocertiorariis dismissed for lack of merit. The restraining order issued on March 6, 1980 is hereby set aside. No pronouncement as to costs.
Barredo, Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.
Footnotes