Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. (PCFI) filed a petition seeking to annul the decision of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) dated November 22, 1982, and its order dated January 14, 1983, which approved the revised schedule of rates for the Subscriber Investments Plan (SIP) of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT). Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially promulgated a decision on November 25, 1983, annulling the NTC's challenged decision and order. This decision was not unanimous, with 9 members concurring, 3 taking no part, and 1 reserving his vote. PLDT filed a motion for reconsideration, followed by a supplemental motion for reconsideration, and subsequently a second motion for reconsideration. The NTC, through the Solicitor General, joined PLDT in its motions for reconsideration. PCFI filed comments and oppositions to these motions. The Court initially denied the first motion for reconsideration on April 3, 1984, but this denial did not state it was final. The Court later granted PLDT's motion to file a second motion for reconsideration and required PCFI to comment. PCFI also filed a motion to declare the November 25, 1983 decision final with respect to NTC, which was not acted upon as NTC had joined PLDT's second motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The instant resolution addresses the motions for reconsideration filed by PLDT and NTC, seeking to overturn the Supreme Court's decision of November 25, 1983.
Issue(s)
Whether the phrase "may be promulgated" in Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 should be interpreted as mandatory or permissive. Whether the NTC is required to promulgate new rules and regulations before approving a Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) schedule, and whether existing substantive and procedural laws are adequate for the NTC to determine the reasonableness of SIP schedules. Whether the existing substantive and procedural laws and rules are adequate for the NTC to determine the reasonableness of SIP schedules, specifically regarding the necessity of rule promulgation for exercising jurisdiction over SIP applications.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reconsidered and set aside its decision of November 25, 1983, and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the NTC's decision approving the revised SIP schedule was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the interpretation of "may be promulgated": The Court held that the phrase "may be promulgated" in Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 should be interpreted in its ordinary sense as permissive or discretionary, not mandatory. The Court emphasized that the basic canon of statutory interpretation requires giving words their ordinary meaning unless a contrary intent is manifest. There is nothing in P.D. No. 217 that commands the phrase "may be promulgated" to be construed as "shall be promulgated." The Court noted that both "shall" and "may be" were used in the same sentence of Section 2, demonstrating a preservation of their distinct meanings. This interpretation aligns with the principle that words are subservient to the intent, but the intent must be gathered from the words used. On the necessity of promulgating new rules and regulations and the adequacy of existing laws: The Court ruled that the NTC is not compelled to promulgate "pertinent rules and regulations" as mandated by the petitioner. The existing substantive and procedural laws, including the Public Service Law (C.A. No. 146) and the rules promulgated by the Public Service Commission and the Board of Communications, are deemed adequate for the NTC to determine the reasonableness of SIP amounts, the company's viability, and other relevant factors. The Court cited several previous cases involving PLDT where these existing laws and rules were applied. The Court also pointed out that Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act allows the NTC to fix provisional rates without a hearing, which is consistent with the approval of SIP schedules. On the adequacy of existing laws and rules regarding rule promulgation: The Court found that the existing laws and rules are more than sufficient for the NTC's functions. The Court highlighted that P.D. No. 217 does not make the promulgation of rules and regulations essential to the exercise of its jurisdiction over SIP applications. The Court referenced Ang Tibay v. CIR to show that the promulgation of rules was not among the requirements of due process in quasi-judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that P.D. No. 1874, which amended P.D. No. 217, merely reiterated or confirmed the NTC's power to approve provisional rates without a hearing, clarifying any ambiguity rather than introducing a new mandatory requirement for rule promulgation.
Main Doctrine
The phrase "may be promulgated" in Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 should be interpreted in its ordinary sense as permissive or discretionary, not mandatory. The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is not compelled to promulgate new rules and regulations as existing laws and rules are adequate for determining the reasonableness of subscriber investment plans.