G.R. No. 152685 - Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. National Telecommunications Commission

The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The petition assailed two decisions by the Court of Appeals (CA):

The February 12, 2001 Decision which dismissed PLDT’s special civil action for certiorari and prohibition.
The March 21, 2002 Resolution denying PLDT’s motion for reconsideration.

The central contention is whether the CA erred in holding that the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) assessments were not contrary to the Supreme Court’s earlier Decision in G.R. No. 127937 (NTC v. Honorable Court of Appeals).

The dispute arises under Section 40(e) of the Public Service Act (PSA), as amended on March 15, 1984, pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 325.
Under this provision, the NTC is authorized to collect Supervision and Regulation Fees (SRF) at a rate of PhP 0.50 for every PhP 100 (or fraction thereof) of:

The capital stock subscribed or paid for (whether by stock corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship), or
The property and equipment, whichever is higher.

The fee assessment is meant to reimburse the NTC for expenses incurred in the supervision, regulation, and fixing of telecommunication rates.

Since approximately 1988, the NTC had been sending SRF assessments to PLDT based on the market value of its outstanding capital stock, including stock dividends.
PLDT protested these assessments on the ground that the SRF should be based solely on the par value of its outstanding capital stock.
The NTC denied PLDT’s protest and motion for reconsideration.
Upon appeal to the CA, the appellate court modified the basis by holding that the SRF should be assessed at the par value of the outstanding capital stock (excluding stock dividends).
In the Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 127937, it was clarified that:

The proper basis for the SRF is neither the par value nor the market value, but rather the value of the stocks subscribed or paid for, including any premiums paid.
In the case of stock dividends, the amount is that which is transferred from the surplus profit account to the capital account – essentially, the value incurred in the original issuance.

To align with this ruling, the NTC subsequently issued assessments on February 10, 2000, and September 5, 2000, which continued to include the value of stock dividends as part of the scheduled capital stock submitted by PLDT.

PLDT contested the February 10, 2000 assessment by writing a protest letter, which was not acted upon by the NTC.
A subsequent identical assessment was sent on September 5, 2000.
PLDT then filed a Motion for Clarification of Enforcement of the July 28, 1999 Decision in G.R. No. 127937.
To maintain the status quo and defer the enforcement of these assessments, the CA initially issued a Temporary Restraining Order, followed by a writ of preliminary injunction on December 4, 2000.
Ultimately, the CA rendered a decision on February 12, 2001, dismissing PLDT’s petition for certiorari and prohibition, and later denied PLDT’s motion for reconsideration on March 21, 2002.

Whether the SRF should be computed based on the par value of PLDT’s outstanding capital stock or on the actual amount received, which includes premiums paid for the subscription of said capital stock.

Whether stock dividends, which are essentially transfers from the surplus or retained earnings to the capital account, should be considered part of the outstanding capital stock subject to the SRF.

Whether the current SRF assessments, prepared on the same schedule as previous assessments that were disputed in G.R. No. 127937, violate the disposition and clarifications provided by the Supreme Court in that case.

Whether PLDT has adequately demonstrated the actual payment figures (i.e., the precise amounts received for the original issuance of its capital stock) required for the proper assessment by the NTC.