Scribd
Upload
113 views2 pages

PCFI V NTC

The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) provisionally approved revisions to the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) rates in 1982 without holding hearings. The Supreme Court annulled the NTC's decision, ruling hearings were necessary to allow public opposition to argue the rates were excessive. In 1983, the NTC permanently approved the new SIP rates without promulgating required rules and regulations implementing relevant decrees first. The petitioner argued this was premature and illegal. The Supreme Court agreed, annulling the NTC's decision for grave abuse of discretion in approving the rates without the required rules and given the economic conditions and PLDT's profitability.

Uploaded by

Paula Katrina Dizon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
113 views2 pages

PCFI V NTC

The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) provisionally approved revisions to the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) rates in 1982 without holding hearings. The Supreme Court annulled the NTC's decision, ruling hearings were necessary to allow public opposition to argue the rates were excessive. In 1983, the NTC permanently approved the new SIP rates without promulgating required rules and regulations implementing relevant decrees first. The petitioner argued this was premature and illegal. The Supreme Court agreed, annulling the NTC's decision for grave abuse of discretion in approving the rates without the required rules and given the economic conditions and PLDT's profitability.

Uploaded by

Paula Katrina Dizon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PCFI v.

NTC
GR No. L-63318 (November 25, 1983)
FACTS:
On March 20, 1980, private respondent PLDT filed an application with the NTC for the approval of a
revised schedule for its Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP). NTC issued an ex-parte order
provisionally approving the revised schedule on April 14, 1982 which, however, was set aside by this
Court on August 31, 1982. The court ruled that "there was necessity of a hearing by the Commission
before it should have acted on the application of the PLDT so that the public could air its opposition,
particularly the herein petitioner and the Solicitor General, representing the government. They
should be given the opportunity to substantiate their objection that the rates under the subscriber
investment plan are excessive and unreasonable and, as a consequence, the low income and
middle class group cannot afford to have telephone connections; and, that there is no need to
increase the rate because the applicant is financially sound."
On November 22, 1982, the NTC rendered the questioned decision permanently approving PLDT's
new and increased SIP rates. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above judgment on
December 14, 1982, and after a month, or on January 14, 1983, NTC denied said motion for
reconsideration.
It is the submission of petitioner that the SIP schedule presented by the PLDT is pre-mature and,
therefore, illegal and baseless, because the NTC has not yet promulgated the required rules and
regulations implementing Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 217
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion when it approved the Revised
Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) of respondent PLDT in the absence of specific rules and
regulations implementing Presidential Decree No. 217

HELD:
Yes. Accordingly the decision of NTC was annulled & set aside. It is the duty of the
respondent NTC to promulgate rules and regulation. Without these rules and

regulations it would create an outright confusion among the rights of PLDT, the
consumers and government itself. The increase of SIP rates is untimely, considering
the economic condition of the country. The approved rate defeats the purpose of the
decree which is to spread ownership among the wide base of investors. The plan to
expand the company program and/or improve its service is laudable, but the
expenses should not be shouldered by the telephone subscribers. Considering the
multi-million profits of the company, the cost of expansion and/or improvement
should come from part of its huge profits.

You might also like