Case Digest (G.R. No. 181789)
Facts:
GMA Network, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. 181789, February 03, 2016, the Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. filed a complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) on April 23, 2003 against Central CATV, Inc. (Skycable), Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc. (Home Cable), and Pilipino Cable Corporation (PCC) alleging prohibited monopolies and combinations in commercial mass media and violations of the Constitution, Executive Order No. 205 and its implementing rules.The complaint traced corporate relationships: interests of Lopez, Inc./ABS-CBN/Benpres in Sky Vision (which wholly owns Skycable), Sky Vision’s ties with Telemondial Holdings, Inc. (THI) in forming PCC, and Home Cable as a Unilink subsidiary. The Benpres and PLDT groups allegedly entered a Master Consolidation Agreement (MCA) on July 18, 2001 to consolidate holdings under Beyond Cable Holdings, Inc., which petitioner claimed effected operational consolidation without prior NTC or congressional approval.
Petitioner sought, among other reliefs, (1) declarations that the mergers/consolidations and related acts were unlawful and (2) an order that respondents cease and desist from implementing those mergers and to maintain GMA’s signal quality. On September 22, 2003 petitioner moved the NTC for a cease and desist order (CDO) pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act; it later filed manifestations and urgings, attaching newspaper accounts purportedly showing further consolidation steps.
The NTC denied the motion for a CDO on November 8, 2004, reasoning that deciding the motion would necessarily resolve the main case without a trial; it denied reconsideration on October 13, 2005. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) alleging grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition on October 10, 2007, upholding the NTC’s discretion and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion for a cease and desist order?
- Was petitioner entitled to a cease and desist order (treated as a status quo order or preliminary injunction) — i.e., did it satisfy the requisites for such provisional relief and is Section 20(g) of the Public Service Act vi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)