G.R. No. 129069 - People vs. Recto y Robea

In February 2000, petitioner GMA Network, Inc., together with several broadcasters, filed with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) a complaint against respondent Central CATV, Inc. under Section 2 of Executive Order (EO) No. 205 to stop Central from soliciting and showing advertisements on its cable television (CATV) system.
Central admitted airing commercials but invoked Section 3 of EO No. 436 (issued in 1997), which allegedly allows CATV operators to carry paid segments if program providers consent.

After petitioners presented evidence, Central moved to dismiss by way of demurrer to evidence, arguing that petitioners failed to prove infringement of the television and broadcast markets.
On December 10, 2004, the NTC granted the demurrer, ruling that EO No. 436 clarified that CATV operators may insert ads with program providers’ consent and that attached certifications evidenced such consent—even if not formally offered—because administrative procedure is not strictly technical.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on February 15, 2007.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which on November 14, 2006 affirmed the NTC decision, holding that EO No. 205’s failure to define “infringement” allowed EO No. 436 to fill in details and that the NTC validly amended its own must-carry rules.
GMA Network then filed a Rule 45 petition for review with the Supreme Court, challenging both procedural and substantive aspects of the NTC and CA rulings.

Whether the CA erred in affirming the NTC’s grant of respondent’s motion to dismiss by demurrer to evidence.
Whether respondent Central CATV, Inc. is prohibited from showing advertisements under Section 2 of EO No. 205, in relation to paragraph 2, Section 3 of EO No. 436.