Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52819)
Facts:
Philippine Global Communications, Inc. v. Honorable Benjamin Relova, G.R. No. 52819, October 02, 1980, Supreme Court Second Division, Fernando, C.J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (PGCI) sought administrative approval to establish a branch or station in Cebu City by filing on May 10, 1976 an application with the Board of Telecommunications (later the National Telecommunications Commission) to render international telecommunications services "from Cebu City to any point outside the Philippines." The Solicitor General and private respondents opposed the application.On March 9, 1979 the Board rendered a decision recognizing petitioner's franchise right to establish branches or stations subject to prior approval. Private respondents — Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, Capitol Wireless, Inc., and Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc. — filed a joint motion for reconsideration on June 14, 1979; petitioner opposed. In their reply opposing petitioner’s opposition, the private respondents challenged the Board/NTC’s jurisdiction to act on the application; that motion remained pending.
On August 27, 1979 the private respondents filed before respondent Judge Benjamin Relova (Branch XI, Court of First Instance of Manila) an action for declaratory judgment to ascertain the scope of PGCI’s legislative franchise (Republic Act No. 4617). PGCI moved to dismiss, arguing that the controversy pertained to the primary jurisdiction of the NTC; private respondents opposed. By order dated January 15, 1980 respondent Judge denied the motion to dismiss as not being "indubitable." PGCI then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a temporary restraining order.
On March 6, 1980 the Court required respondents to answer and issued a temporary restraining order. Respondents filed a joint answer on April 21, 1980, asserting that RA No. 4617 (the franchise) was ambiguous and, in particular, that Section 1 limited ingress and egress of PGCI's messages through a "sole gateway" (Manila), raising doubt whether PGCI could lawf...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Benjamin Relova commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss on the ground of the National Telecommunications Commission's primary jurisdiction?
- Is a suit for declaratory relief an appropriate remedy to resolve the true scope of petitioner’s legislative franchise (Republic Act No. 4617) and the related jurisdictional question, or must the administrative r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)