Title
Republic vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
Case
G.R. No. L-18841
Decision Date
Jan 27, 1969
The Republic sued PLDT over disconnection of trunk lines, asserting public interest and eminent domain to compel interconnection; court ruled in favor of public use, requiring just compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18841)

Key Dates

  • July 1, 1947: Creation of the Bureau of Telecommunications (Executive Order No. 94)
  • 1933–1947: PLDT–RCA interconnection agreements (revenue‐sharing amended from 25/75 to 50/50)
  • February 2, 1956: PLDT gave 24-month notice to terminate RCA agreement (effective February 2, 1958)
  • February 2, 1958: Provisional joint overseas service inaugurated between Bureau and RCA
  • March 5, 1958: Formal Bureau–RCA overseas telephone service agreement
  • April 12, 1958: PLDT disconnected rented trunk lines; Republic filed suit same day
  • April 14, 1958: Trial court issued preliminary injunction ordering immediate reconnection
  • January 27, 1969: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1935 Philippine Constitution (governing date of decision)
  • Executive Order No. 94 (reorganizing and defining Bureau powers)
  • Civil Code of the Philippines, Articles 1306, 1336–1337 (freedom of contract)
  • Public Service Act, Sections 13–14 (jurisdiction over public utilities)
  • PLDT legislative franchise (Act 3426, as amended by Commonwealth Act 407), Sections 14, 19

Factual Background

The Bureau of Telecommunications, an arm of the Republic, was empowered in 1947 to establish and operate wire and radio telecommunication services, set equitable rates, and enter into interconnection arrangements. PLDT, a non-exclusive franchisee since Act 3426, operated a nationwide telephone system. Since 1933, PLDT and RCA had interchanged overseas calls under revenue-sharing agreements, amended over time. The Bureau rented PLDT trunk lines to serve government offices and, from 1948 onward, the general public—issuing its own rate schedule. In early 1958 the Bureau and RCA commenced a joint overseas service. On April 7, 1958, PLDT objected to public use of its rented trunk lines by the Bureau and threatened severance; when the Bureau did not desist, PLDT disconnected the lines on April 12, 1958, isolating most international voice traffic.

Procedural Posture

On April 12, 1958, the Republic sued PLDT in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking (a) an order compelling PLDT to execute an interconnection contract on reasonable terms; and (b) a preliminary injunction restoring and preserving existing connections. The trial court granted the injunction on April 14, 1958, but, after hearing, dismissed both the complaint and PLDT’s counterclaims, while making the injunction permanent. Both parties appealed.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Republic may compel PLDT to enter an interconnection contract.
  2. Whether the Bureau of Telecommunications was authorized to operate a commercial telephone service.
  3. Whether PLDT was justified in severing the trunk lines.
  4. Whether PLDT is entitled to compensation for use of its poles by the Bureau.

Power to Compel Interconnection vs. Eminent Domain

The Court affirmed that contractual freedom prohibits coercing parties into an agreement on essential terms (Civil Code Arts. 1306, 1336–1337). Nevertheless, the sovereign power of eminent domain may impose an easement-type burden—interconnection—on a public utility, with just compensation, for public use. Article XIII, Section 6 of the 1935 Constitution permits transfer or burdening of utilities in the national interest. Executive Order 94 authorizes negotiation but does not preclude resort to condemnation if terms are unreasonable. The Republic’s petition, though lacking an agreed contract, sufficiently alleges public prejudice from isolation and thus supports compulsory interconnection subject to judicial determination of just compensation.

Jurisdiction to Resolve Condemnation

Actions to impose eminent domain burdens lie in the regular courts, not before the Public Service Commission (PSC). The Bureau’s network, being government-owned, is exempt from PSC supervision under Public Service Act Section 14.

Authority for Bureau’s Commercial Operations

Executive Order 94, Sections 79(b) and (c), empowers the Bureau to “operate and maintain wire-telephone or radio-telephone communication service throughout the Philippines” and to set rates, without limiting service to government offices. Prior statements by Bureau officials cannot fetter statutorily granted authority; government operations remain lawful despite earlier misrepresentations, since the State is not estopped by its agents’ errors.

Competition and Contract Misuse

Actual demand for telephone service far exceeds supply (PLDT had 20,000 pending applications; Bureau had 5,000). PLDT’s franchise is expressly non-excl

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.