G.R. No. L-61438 - Boiser vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Erdulfo C. Boiser, doing business as Premiere Automatic Telephone Network, has been operating a telephone system in Tagbilaran City and other municipalities in Bohol since April 15, 1965.
In August 1965, Premiere entered into an “Interconnecting Agreement” with the respondent, Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
Under the agreement, PLDT was to provide long distance and overseas facilities through its relay station in Mandaue City, Cebu, while Premiere was obliged to maintain its facilities, provide relay switching services, qualified radio operators, and observe the standards set forth in the contract.

On February 27, 1979, without prior notice to Premiere, PLDT issued a “circuit authorization order” to its employees co-respondents, Roman Juezan and Wilson Morrell, directing the termination of the connection between PLDT’s relay station and Premiere’s telephone system in Bohol.
This order was asserted by the petitioner to be in grave violation of the “Interconnecting Agreement.”

To avert anticipated disruptions in telephone communication and potential adverse effects on both the public and private sectors, Premiere instituted Civil Case No. 17867 in the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu seeking an injunction and damages.
On March 2, 1979, the CFI issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining PLDT and its co-respondents from disconnecting the Mandaue–Tagbilaran telephone connections.
On August 2, 1979, five months after the TRO was issued, the private respondents filed a motion to dissolve or lift the restraining order.
The petitioners and respondents agreed to jointly address the merits of the pending motions during trial.
Almost three years later, on July 20, 1982, while the trial was still in progress, the private respondents elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. No. 14554-SP) with the Court of Appeals challenging the TRO.

PLDT contended that the principal dispute—namely, the validity of the “Circuit Authorization Order” and the technical manner in which the relay station was operated—fell within its internal business operations and should be under the purview of the National Telecommunications Commission (formerly the Board of Communications).
Premiere, however, maintained that the CFI of Cebu acted within its jurisdiction in adjudicating breach of contract allegations arising from the Interconnecting Agreement.
The contractual provisions were closely scrutinized; specifically, paragraph 13 of the agreement required a thirty (30) day advance written notice for cancellation upon violation, and Section 2 imposed a similar thirty-day requirement in the event of default.
PLDT further supported its position by citing the Board of Communications’ decision in BOC Case No. 76-53, which stipulated a sixty (60) day notice period for disconnection in cases of delinquent account settlements.
The existence of these specific notice provisions underscored the contention that any disconnection must follow the agreed procedure and that the trial court was the proper venue for addressing breach of contract disputes.

Whether the Court of Appeals (Intermediate Appellate Court) had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari and prohibition in a matter that involves the breach of contract and technical issues in the operation of a telephone system.
Whether the controversy falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of administrative bodies, such as the National Telecommunications Commission, instead of the regular courts.

Whether the Court of First Instance of Cebu properly exercised its jurisdiction in issuing the temporary restraining order against PLDT’s disconnection of the relay station facilities.
Whether the requirements under the Interconnecting Agreement—including the thirty (30) day notice period—were observed by PLDT in effecting the disconnection.

Whether the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was premature in light of the pending resolution of the breach of contract case in the trial court.
Whether the alleged delay by the lower court in resolving the motion to lift the restraining order justifies immediate appellate intervention.

Whether granting the petition or dissolving the TRO would adversely affect the public’s access to telephone services in Bohol.
Whether public interest considerations warrant maintaining the status quo given the potential ramifications of disconnecting a key relay station.