G.R. No. 41205 - Aguilar vs. Pasay Transportation Co., Inc.

On March 2, 1983, the Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition to annul and set aside the November 22, 1982 decision and the January 14, 1983 order of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) relating to the Subscriber Investments Plan (SIP) of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
Comments and memoranda were filed by petitioner, PLDT, and the Solicitor General representing the NTC.
On November 25, 1983, the Court promulgated a decision annulling the challenged NTC decision and order, with 9 concurring Justices, 3 Justices not taking part, and 1 Justice reserving vote.

On January 10, 1984, the Court granted PLDT’s motion for 15-day extension to file a motion for reconsideration.
PLDT filed its motion for reconsideration on January 12, 1984, followed by a supplemental motion on February 27, 1984.
The NTC, through the Solicitor General, manifested its adoption of PLDT’s motion for reconsideration.
On April 3, 1984, the Court denied the first motion for reconsideration.
PLDT filed a motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration on April 17, 1984 which was granted in a resolution dated May 8, 1984.
Petitioner filed comments opposing the second motion; NTC and PLDT filed replies and manifestations joining the second motion.
The Court reconsidered the November 25, 1983 decision and, on August 18, 1984, issued a resolution setting aside that decision and dismissing the petition.

On August 31, 1982, the Court set aside the NTC order dated April 14, 1982 which had provisionally approved the revised SIP rates in the case Bautista v. NTC, et al., due to the lack of proper hearings.
Thereafter, in NTC Case No. 82-27, the NTC conducted multiple hearings allowing petitioner and other oppositors to present objections on PLDT's revised SIP schedule.
Oppositors cross-examined PLDT’s witness but did not present evidence; some oppositors withdrew their objections after concessions.
The NTC issued the November 22, 1982 decision approving the revised SIP rates as just, reasonable, and within the 50%-of-cost limit mandated by P.D. No. 217.
Petitioner contended that NTC erred in approving the rates without first promulgating necessary implementing rules and regulations under P.D. No. 217.

Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 delegates power to the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications (via the Board of Communications or appropriate agency) to "see to it" that policies for the telephone industry are implemented and "pertinent rules and regulations may be promulgated."
The Public Service Act (C.A. No. 146), as amended, particularly Section 16(c), allows the Commission to provisionally approve rates without hearing, provided a hearing is called within 30 days.
The Board of Communications promulgated Rules of Practice and Procedure in 1978 governing hearings and processes before the NTC, including notice, oppositions, provisional relief, and application of Rules of Court in suppletory fashion.
P.D. No. 1874 (1983) amended Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 clarifying the NTC’s authority to provisionally approve subscriber investments without hearings, but such approval must be followed by a hearing within 30 days.

P.D. No. 217 articulates policies promoting the availability of telephone service at lowest reasonable cost with efficient and expanded service.
It adopts the subscriber self-financing plan where telephone subscribers partly finance capital investments via purchase of PLDT stock, capped at 50% of installed costs.
The SIP rates promulgated by NTC included provisions for deferred or installment payment to lighten subscriber burden.
PLDT was profitable with subscribers receiving quarterly dividends, and the SIP schedule was deemed reasonable in light of rising material costs and currency devaluation.
The Court noted the constitutional directive to encourage widespread public ownership of utilities and support the national economy by promoting savings channeled to productive enterprises.

Whether or not the NTC was mandated by P.D. No. 217 to promulgate "pertinent rules and regulations" before approving PLDT’s revised Subscriber Investments Plan schedule.

Whether the denial of petitioner’s challenge to the NTC’s November 22, 1982 decision approving the revised SIP rates was proper given the procedural due process afforded.

Whether the existing laws and rules (Public Service Act, Board of Communications rules, etc.) were adequate for the NTC to exercise jurisdiction and decide on the SIP schedule without promulgation of additional implementing rules.

The proper construction and interpretation of Section 2 of P.D. No. 217, particularly the permissive or mandatory character of the phrase “may be promulgated.”