G.R. No. 181789 February 3, 2016
GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., AND PILIPINO CABLE CORPORATION, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. filed a complaint before the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) against cable operators Skycable, Home Cable, and Pilipino Cable Corporation (PCC). GMA alleged that a series of transactions involving Lopez, Inc., ABS-CBN, and PLDT groups, culminating in a Master Consolidation Agreement, effectively merged these cable entities under a common holding company, Beyond Cable Holdings, Inc. GMA contended this created a prohibited monopoly in commercial mass media, violating the Constitution, the Public Service Act, and other laws. It prayed for a declaration of nullity of these transactions and a permanent cease and desist order.
Subsequently, GMA filed a motion for the NTC to issue a provisional cease and desist order to immediately halt the alleged ongoing consolidation pending the main case’s resolution. The NTC denied the motion, ruling that resolving it would effectively decide the main case without a full presentation of evidence. GMA’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. GMA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NTC in refusing to issue the provisional order. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting GMA to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the National Telecommunications Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in denying GMA Network, Inc.’s motion for the issuance of a provisional cease and desist order.

RULING

No, the NTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court explained that the power to issue provisional reliefs, like a cease and desist order, is discretionary. It is an adjunct of the NTC’s primary jurisdiction to hear and decide the main case on its merits. A writ of certiorari will only lie if this discretion is exercised in a capricious, arbitrary, or whimsical manner.
The legal logic is that the grant of provisional relief requires a clear showing of an existing right to be protected and a pressing necessity to prevent serious damage. The NTC found that GMA’s motion, which sought to stop the implementation of the consolidation, hinged on the very merits of the main complaint—the alleged unlawful merger. Granting it would have been a prejudgment of the case. The NTC acted within its sound discretion in prioritizing a full-blown hearing where all parties could present evidence on the complex factual allegations of monopoly and violation of law. The Court held that the NTC’s cautious approach, aimed at preventing a premature resolution, was not arbitrary but a proper exercise of its regulatory discretion. Therefore, its denial of the provisional order was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion warranting judicial reversal.