Case Digest (G.R. No. 224849)
Facts:
GMA Network, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission, G.R. Nos. 192128 & 192135-36, June 18, 2018, Supreme Court Second Division, Caguioa, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. (GMA), a legislative-franchise grantee under R.A. No. 7252, applied to the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and filed for renewals of three Provisional Authorities (PAs) to operate: a VHF-TV in Dumaguete City, DXRC-AM in Zamboanga City, and DXLA-TV in Zamboanga City. The PAs were issued in 1996–1997 and expired between June and November 1998. GMA did not timely file for renewal and instead filed ex parte motions for renewal or issuance of CPCs only in 2002–2003, some four to five years after expiration.
While the motions were pending, the NTC scheduled clarificatory hearings and directed GMA to explain the late filings and its operation with expired PAs. GMA admitted inadvertent delay attributed to record-keeping and corporate turnover, and invoked Section 28 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (Public Service Act) to argue prescription; it also claimed that NTC-issued temporary permits authorized operations during the period its PAs lapsed.
The NTC issued Orders (dated January 11, 2007; February 26, 2009; and May 25, 2009) renewing or issuing CPCs/continuing authority but imposed fines under Section 21 of the Public Service Act for operating with expired PAs. The fines were initially computed at P200/day (totaling Php 674,600.00) and later reduced to P50/day (aggregate Php 259,450.00) after partial reconsideration. GMA challenged the NTC Orders before the Court of Appeals (CA) in consolidated CA-G.R. SP Nos. 109954, 110145 and 110148.
The CA (Second Division) dismissed GMA’s petitions in a Decision dated April 29, 2010 (penning Justice Portia Alino-Hormachuelos, with Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring). The CA held that the 60-day prescription in Section 28 applies only to criminal proceedings under Chapter IV of the Public Service Act and not to administrative regulatory proceedings; that fines under Section 21 are administrative and not capped by the P25,000 penal ceiling of Section 23; and that temporary ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner GMA violate Section 21 of the Public Service Act by operating with expired Provisional Authorities?
- Does the 60-day prescription in Section 28 of the Public Service Act apply as a defense in administrative proceedings by the NTC for violations of orders, decisions, regulations, or terms and conditions of certificates?
- Does the P25,000 limit under Section 23 of the Public Service Act cap the fines that...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)