G.R. No. 205875 - Liberty Broadcasting Network, Inc. vs. Atlocom Wireless System, Inc.

Atlocom Wireless System, Inc. is the grantee of a legislative franchise under Republic Act No. 8605, which authorizes it to install, operate, and maintain a commercial cable television system.
On October 8, 2003, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued an order in NTC Case No. 98-158 granting Atlocom a Provisional Authority (PA) to install, operate, and maintain a Multi-Point Multi-Channel Distribution System (MMDS) in Metro Manila, valid for 18 months (until April 8, 2005), subject to conditions including frequency assignment by its Frequency Management Division (FMD).

Atlocom, through its counsel, requested an extension for the allocation of the frequencies and for the construction and installation of its radio stations via a letter dated April 5, 2004.
Subsequent follow-ups included a letter dated June 2, 2005 and a formal Motion for Extension of Provisional Authority filed on March 3, 2005.
Despite these efforts, Atlocom’s PA was not extended, and on December 23, 2008, the NTC denied its motion for extension due to the re-allocation of the MMDS frequency bands.

On August 23, 2005, NTC issued Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 06-08-2005, re-allocating various frequency bands—for broadband wireless access—to fixed, nomadic, and mobile networks.
The re-allocation affected the frequency bands from 2572 to 2596 MHz, which Atlocom claimed had been “identified” for its MMDS system by a Certification dated October 22, 2003, although no document confirmed an actual assignment by the FMD.

On September 8, 2009, Atlocom filed a Petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q-09-65566 seeking to enjoin the implementation of MC 06-08-2005 and to reinstate its allegedly assigned frequencies.
Liberty Broadcasting Network, Inc. (LBNI) intervened, joining the NTC, as it had been allocated alternative frequency bands (2535–2545 MHz and 2565–2595 MHz) and was affected by Atlocom’s claims.
The RTC, after due hearings, denied Atlocom’s application for a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction on December 9, 2010, with the denial upheld by an Order dated March 21, 2011.

Atlocom filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning the RTC decision, and in its Resolution dated August 12, 2011, the CA denied Atlocom’s prayer for injunction relief.
However, on June 29, 2012, the CA reversed the RTC decision and granted a writ of preliminary prohibitory injunction, enjoining the NTC from implementing MC 06-08-2005 (with respect to the frequencies 2572–2596 MHz) and preventing LBNI from using those frequencies, subject to a bond of Php 200,000.
LBNI and the NTC filed motions for reconsideration, with LBNI also moving to file a counter-bond, which were ultimately denied by the CA.
LBNI then filed its petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 205875 and 208916), and the cases were consolidated due to their common factual basis and identical issues.

Atlocom contended that it had been denied its right to use the frequencies due to the failure of the NTC to timely resolve its extension requests, arguing a violation of due process.
LBNI argued that the CA committed error in finding that the NTC’s actions amounted to a deprivation of due process and that Atlocom’s provisional authority had imbued it with an actual right to the frequencies.
The dispute also involved technical arguments regarding frequency assignment, the nature of the PA, and the adequacy of notice provided for the public hearing on MC 06-08-2005.

Whether Atlocom had established a clear and unmistakable legal right (in esse) over the frequency bands, considering its PA was provisional and conditioned upon an eventual frequency assignment.
Whether the material and substantial invasion of Atlocom’s rights occurred due to the NTC’s re-allocation under MC 06-08-2005.
Whether there was an urgent need for the injunction to prevent irreparable injury to Atlocom.

Whether the NTC observed due process in the re-allocation of the frequencies, including the adequacy of notice and the conduct of a public hearing.
Whether the issuance of MC 06-08-2005, and the subsequent delay in resolving Atlocom’s extension request, amounted to a breach of procedural fairness.

Whether the CA incorrectly denied LBNI’s motion to file a counter-bond, given the technical evidence presented regarding potential irreparable damage to LBNI’s operations.
Whether LBNI’s business and technical projections—especially the adverse impact on its bandwidth and service reliability—warranted greater consideration by the CA.

Whether the grant of the preliminary injunction by the CA amounted to pre-judging the outcome of the pending civil case in the RTC.
Whether the writ should have been issued in view of Atlocom’s not having an actualized frequency assignment.