Case Digest (G.R. No. 196112)
Facts:
GMA Network, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 196112, February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. (formerly Republic Broadcasting System, Inc.), holder of a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 7252 (enacted March 20, 1992), applied to the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate a 5-kilowatt AM radio station in Puerto Princesa City (docketed as BMC Case No. 93‑538). On January 14, 1997, the NTC granted a provisional authority (PA) valid for 18 months, expiring July 14, 1998; GMA accepted the PA’s terms and conditions.
GMA failed to renew the PA upon its expiration but continued broadcasting. The NTC nonetheless issued a series of temporary permits covering successive three‑year intervals (first issued April 14, 1998 covering April 2, 1998–April 1, 2001; second May 21, 2001 covering April 2, 2001–April 1, 2004; third June 23, 2004 covering April 2, 2004–April 1, 2007; fourth March 27, 2007 covering April 2, 2007–April 1, 2010). On September 13, 2002, GMA filed an Ex‑Parte Motion for Issuance of CPC (claiming compliance with the PA and current operation under temporary permits).
The NTC set the Ex‑Parte Motion for a clarificatory hearing (February 26, 2009) and ordered GMA to explain why it should not be sanctioned for late filing and operating with an expired PA. GMA replied (March 12, 2009) that the lapse was inadvertent, that it had operated under NTC temporary permits, and that prosecution was time‑barred by the 60‑day prescriptive rule in Section 28 of the Public Service Act.
In an Order dated May 25, 2009, the NTC renewed the PA until July 14, 2012 but imposed a fine of P152,100.00 (P100/day) for operating with an expired PA from July 14, 1998 to September 13, 2002 (1,521 days). After GMA’s motion for partial reconsideration, the NTC reduced the fine to P76,050.00 (Order dated January 8, 2010). GMA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in a Decision dated October 12, 2010 (pened by A.J. Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with A.J.s Ricardo R. Rosario and Samuel H. Gaerlan concurring), denied the appeal: the CA held the 60‑day limitation under Section 28 applied only to criminal proceedings and not to administrative sanctions, and that the fine as reduced was within the authority of the NTC under Section 21 of the Public Service Act. A motion for reconsideration was denied (Resolution dated March 9, 2011).
GMA filed this petition for review on certio...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the NTC’s imposition of an administrative fine against GMA time‑barred under the 60‑day prescriptive period of Section 28 of the Public Service Act?
- Was the amount of the fine unconscionable or otherwise prohibited by Section 23 of the Public Service Act?
- Did the successive issuance of NTC temporary permits legitimize GMA’s operation during the lapse of its provisional authority and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)