G.R. No. L-61438, June 24, 1983
ERDULFO C. BOISER, doing business under the name and style PREMIERE AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE NETWORK, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., CONRADO HERNANDEZ, ROMAN JUEZAN and WILSON MORRELL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Boiser, operating as Premiere Automatic Telephone Network in Bohol, entered into an “Interconnecting Agreement” with respondent PLDT in 1965, enabling Premiere’s subscribers to access long-distance and overseas calls via PLDT’s Mandaue relay station. On February 27, 1979, PLDT issued a “circuit authorization order” to its employees to disconnect this service without prior notice. Boiser filed Civil Case No. 17867 for injunction and damages before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu, which issued a temporary restraining order on March 2, 1979, preserving the status quo and preventing disconnection.
Five months later, PLDT moved to dissolve the restraining order. The parties agreed to jointly hear this motion alongside the trial on the merits. As the trial progressed and Boiser was winding up its evidence, PLDT, nearly three years after its motion, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA- G.R. No. 14554 -SP). PLDT argued the CFI lacked jurisdiction, asserting that the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) had exclusive authority over such technical interconnection disputes. The CA issued a resolution on July 26, 1982, restraining the enforcement of the CFI’s order, effectively allowing the disconnection pending its proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of PLDT’s certiorari petition and issuing an injunction that would disrupt telephone services to Bohol, pending the CFI’s final determination of the main case.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA resolution, and directed the dismissal of CA- G.R. No. 14554 -SP. The legal logic centered on protecting the paramount public interest during the pendency of litigation. The Court acknowledged the jurisdictional question raised by PLDT regarding the NTC’s potential authority. However, it emphasized that this issue was still properly sub judice before the CFI, which had not yet rendered a final ruling. The CA’s intervention at that stage was premature.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the immediate and severe consequence of the CA’s injunction was the deprivation of vital telephone communications for the people of Bohol, who were innocent third parties to the contractual dispute. Citing precedents like Republic Telephone Co. v. PLDT and Republic v. PLDT, the Court reiterated that in public utility disputes, the protection of public interest and convenience is the foremost consideration. The policy under Presidential Decree No. 217, which treats efficient telephone service as crucial for national development, further supported this view. The Supreme Court held that pending the CFI’s final decision, services must be maintained to avoid punishing the public for the parties’ private disagreement. Thus, the status quo ante order of the CFI was reinstated to serve the overriding public welfare.