Title
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 94374
Decision Date
Aug 27, 1992
ETPI sought CPCN for an International Gateway Facility, contested by PLDT over franchise limits; SC ruled NTC exceeded jurisdiction, annulled CPCN, citing strict franchise interpretation.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94374)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI):
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) filed an application with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) on July 16, 1987, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to construct, maintain, and operate an International Digital Gateway Facility (IDGF). ETPI claimed it had a franchise under R.A. 5002 to operate telecommunications systems for the reception and transmission of messages between the Philippines and international points.
  • PLDT's Opposition:
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed an opposition on June 23, 1988, arguing that ETPI’s proposed facility would duplicate existing infrastructure, exploit PLDT’s domestic network, and violate international practices. PLDT also contended that ETPI lacked the franchise to operate a telephone system.
  • NTC’s Decision:
On November 14, 1989, the NTC, through Commissioner Jose Luis A. Alcuaz, granted ETPI’s application for a CPCN, subject to conditions including interconnection with PLDT’s network. The NTC En Banc upheld this decision on July 16, 1990.
  • PLDT’s Petition:
PLDT filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the NTC’s decision on jurisdictional and franchise limitation grounds, arguing that ETPI was unauthorized to operate a telephone system and that the NTC exceeded its authority by ordering interconnection.

Issues:

  • Whether the NTC exceeded its jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion by granting ETPI a CPCN to install and operate an International Gateway Facility (IGF), which PLDT argued was only useful for a telephone system, which ETPI’s franchise did not authorize.
  • Whether the NTC acted without jurisdiction or abused its discretion by ordering PLDT to interconnect with ETPI’s proposed IGF, given that ETPI did not have a telephone system of its own.
  • Whether the NTC’s decision was legally sound and properly based on facts and law, or whether it merely adopted its earlier decisions without proper analysis.
  • Whether Eastern’s proposed operations would exploit PLDT’s existing telephone network and undermine its revenue streams.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms