Title
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. City of Davao and the Public Service Commission
Case
G. R. No. L-23080
Decision Date
Sep 20, 1965
PLDT challenged Davao City's authority to establish a telephone system, claiming it violated PLDT's rights and required PSC approval. The Supreme Court ruled Davao City had authority under its charter, exempt from PSC requirements, and PLDT's franchise was non-exclusive.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 106274)

Factual Background

The petitioner, which had operated a telephone system in the Davao poblacion since 1931 under a congressional franchise, filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus to enjoin Davao City from fulfilling its contract with ITT Philippines, Inc. to install a city-wide telephone system and to compel the Public Service Commission to require a certificate of public convenience and necessity. The Davao City Council adopted Resolutions Nos. 664 and 2015 authorizing a city-owned and operated telephone system to meet pressing requirements for expansion and to serve the poblacion and ten outlying districts.

Contractual and Project Status

Pursuant to the City Council resolutions, Davao City contracted with ITT Philippines, Inc. on February 26, 1964 for the installation and delivery of a telephone system for P3,587,000, with a down payment of P717,000 made May 29, 1964. ITT represented that practically all materials had arrived and that construction was well advanced. The proposed city system contemplated an initial automatic exchange of 1,000 lines, with expansion to meet an immediate requirement estimated at 3,000 lines and further extensions to the outlying districts.

Procedural History

The Public Service Commission filed its answer July 15, 1964, and Davao City filed its answer August 11, 1964. ITT Philippines, Inc. was permitted to intervene and filed an answer in intervention August 7, 1964; the petitioner replied October 15, 1964. Petitioner twice sought preliminary injunctions; both applications were denied. After submission, Congress enacted Republic Act 4354, and intervenor moved to dismiss on mootness grounds. The Supreme Court proceeded to decide the merits without resolving whether RA 4354 cured any defect.

Petitioner's Contentions

The petitioner advanced two principal contentions. First, Davao City allegedly lacked power to establish and operate a telephone system under its charter and applicable law. Second, Davao City was required to secure a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission before undertaking such operation. Petitioner also asserted prejudice to its vested rights as the prior operator in the area and invoked the prior operator rule.

Respondents' and Intervenor's Positions

Davao City defended the lawfulness of its action as an exercise of its legislative powers under Section 14(ee) of its Charter to promote the comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the city. The City emphasized the unique geographic and demographic circumstances of Davao City and the insufficiency of the petitioner’s existing facilities to serve outlying districts. The Public Service Commission relied on statutory exemptions in the Public Service Act. ITT Philippines, Inc. urged dismissal on the basis of subsequent congressional authorization in Republic Act 4354, while also defending the validity of its contractual commitments and project progress.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court framed the central legal questions as whether Davao City possessed authority under its charter to establish and operate a telephone system and whether the City was required to obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Public Service Commission before doing so. Subsidiary issues included the applicability of the prior operator rule and the effect, if any, of subsequent legislation in RA 4354.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court denied the petition, without costs. It held that Davao City had the power under Section 14(ee) of its Charter to establish and maintain a telephone system as a legitimate exercise of the general welfare clause given the special factual circumstances. The Court also held that under the Public Service Act government entities are exempt from the certificate requirement, and that the petitioner’s franchise was expressly nonexclusive under Section 14 of Act No. 3436, so the City’s entry did not impair any exclusive franchise right.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Municipal Power and General Welfare Clause

The Court reasoned that the general welfare clause of Davao City’s Charter authorized measures conducive to health, comfort, convenience, and prosperity, and that municipal authority to undertake public improvements may be inferred where conditions justify such action. The Court relied on American jurisprudence recognizing municipal power to create utilities under general welfare grants and on Philippine precedents construing the general welfare clause liberally. It emphasized that the proposed telephone system served governmental functions—public safety, law enforcement, fire control, and emergency communications—as well as proprietary purposes and that the coexistence of governmental and proprietary functions does not negate municipal authority.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Exclusivity and Prior Operator Rule

The Court observed that Act No. 3436 expressly provided that petitioner’s rights were not exclusive. The Court explained that the prior operator rule, which protects an incumbent only if it immediately offers to meet increased public demand, did not assist the petitioner because petitioner had not demonstrated an immediate plan to supply the outlying districts or to meet the evident demand. The nonexclusive nature of the fran

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.