G.R. No. L-60548 - Philippine Global Communications, Inc. vs. Relova

Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (petitioner) filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking to overturn the decision rendered on April 27, 1982, by Judge Benjamin Relova of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XI.
The petition challenges the lower court’s declaration that petitioner was without authority to establish, maintain, and operate any branch or station apart from its single principal station in Makati, as well as the dismissal of the counterclaim.

On May 10, 1976, petitioner submitted an application to the Board of Communications (now the National Telecommunications Commission) for authority to establish a branch station in Cebu City for international telecommunication services.
The application encountered opposition from private respondents.
Meanwhile, on March 24, 1977, while the application was pending, the Board issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-13, designating the Metropolitan Manila area as the sole “gateway” for communications and clarifying what constitutes “domestic record operations.”
On January 16, 1979, petitioner was provisionally authorized to establish a branch station in Cebu City, subject to the condition that operations interface with domestic carriers once their facilities were upgraded.
On May 24, 1979, the Board granted petitioner final authority to establish a branch station in Cebu City and potentially elsewhere in the Philippines, again pending prior approval of the location.

While petitioner’s application was ongoing, private respondents filed a petition for declaratory judgment with the lower court on August 27, 1979, seeking the proper construction of petitioner’s franchise under Republic Act No. 4617.
The petitioner’s motion to dismiss this declaratory relief petition was denied, and after the issues were joined, both parties agreed at the pre-trial conference to resolve the matter on the bases of their pleadings and memoranda.
The lower court rendered a decision declaring petitioner without authority to operate additional branch/station facilities apart from the principal station and dismissed the counterclaim.

Petitioner contended that the lower court’s decision was erroneous because it contradicted the explicit provisions of its legislative franchise (Republic Act No. 4617) and the contemporaneous interpretation of the statute by the enforcing governmental agency and the former Secretary of Justice.
Petitioner argued that the declaratory relief, although based on the pleadings, involved genuine issues of fact that might have otherwise required a trial.
The case was thus elevated to the Court of Appeals en banc for a review on certiorari to correct the alleged misinterpretation and misapplication of the law.

Whether petitioner is authorized under its legislative franchise, Republic Act No. 4617, to establish stations or substations in locations outside Metropolitan Manila.

Whether the establishment, maintenance, and operation of these additional stations or branches constitute “domestic record operations” or communication service in violation of the statutory provisions, particularly Section 17.