GR 135535; (February, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135535 ; February 14, 2005
ZOOMZAT, INC., petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ROMULO S. RODRIGUEZ, JR., et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Zoomzat, Inc. alleged that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Gingoog City passed Resolution No. 261 in 1991, expressing willingness to allow it to install a cable TV system. However, the city mayor did not act on its subsequent permit application. In 1993, the same city council enacted Ordinance No. 19, granting a ten-year franchise to Gingoog Spacelink Cable TV, Inc. Zoomzat filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, accusing the council members of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act) by giving unwarranted preference to Spacelink, to its prejudice as a prior applicant.
An information was filed before the Sandiganbayan. However, after a reinvestigation, the prosecution recommended dismissal for lack of probable cause. The Sandiganbayan approved the withdrawal of the information. Zoomzat’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan correctly approved the withdrawal of the information for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against the respondent city councilors.
RULING
Yes, the Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the case. For liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the accused must be a public officer charged with the grant of licenses, permits, or concessions. The legal logic hinges on the respondents’ lack of authority. Executive Orders No. 205 and 436 vest the exclusive power to grant certificates of authority for cable TV operation with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC). Local government units, under the general welfare clause, may only regulate aspects like the use of public streets, not grant franchises.
Consequently, the Sangguniang Panlungsod’s enactment of Ordinance No. 19 was an ultra vires act—it usurped a power it did not possess. A void ordinance confers no rights; thus, Spacelink gained no valid franchise, and Zoomzat suffered no legal injury or prejudice from its passage. Furthermore, Zoomzat’s claim of prior right was unfounded. Resolution No. 261 merely expressed willingness and did not constitute a grant of a franchise, unlike the specific terms in Ordinance No. 19. Without a valid franchise grant by the council, the element of giving “unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference” under the Anti-Graft Act could not be established. The petition was denied.