GR 204487; (December, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 204487 , December 05, 2019
National Telecommunications Commission, Petitioner, vs. Brancomm Cable and Television Network Co., Respondent.
FACTS
Cable Link & Holdings Corporation filed four applications with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for certificates of authority to install, operate, and maintain Cable Antenna Television (CATV) systems in municipalities in Pampanga. The verification and certification against forum shopping for these applications were signed by its counsel, Atty. Basilio B. Bolante. During the hearing, respondent Brancomm Cable and Television Network Co. opposed the applications, arguing it was not furnished copies as required by NTC rules and that the person who signed the verification and certification lacked authority. Brancomm filed an Opposition and Omnibus Motion to dismiss the applications, citing defects in the verification and certification, non-compliance with NTC Office Order No. 106-10-2007 on minimum application requirements, and a denial of due process as it was not furnished affidavits of witnesses three days before the hearing. The NTC denied Brancomm’s motion, ruling the authority to sign was ratified by a board resolution, the defective jurat was cured, the office order’s requirements were for expediency and not mandatory for dismissal, and Brancomm would have ample time for cross-examination. The NTC’s Omnibus Order and a subsequent Order denying reconsideration were annulled by the Court of Appeals, which held that Atty. Bolante lacked clear authority to sign, the failure to comply with the office order was fatal, and Brancomm was denied due process. The NTC filed this petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether Atty. Basilio B. Bolante had authority to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping for Cable Link’s applications.
2. Whether Cable Link’s failure to comply with NTC Office Order No. 106-10-2007 warranted the outright dismissal of its applications.
3. Whether Brancomm was denied due process.
RULING
1. No, Atty. Bolante lacked proper authority. The Court of Appeals correctly found that the Board Resolution submitted by Cable Link explicitly authorized “MR. ARMANDO M. MERILLENO” to sign documents and verifications. While the resolution also ratified actions taken by Atty. Bolante, the wording was explicit in conferring signing authority specifically on Merilleño, not Bolante. There could be no substantial compliance as the resolution’s language was unequivocal.
2. Yes, non-compliance with NTC Office Order No. 106-10-2007 was fatal. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the office order clearly required the submission of specified documents before the NTC could act on an application. The NTC’s contention that these were merely for expediency contradicted the directive of the office order. Liberal application of the rules was unwarranted.
3. Yes, Brancomm was denied due process. The NTC proceeded with the hearing and allowed Cable Link to present witnesses even though Brancomm was not furnished the affidavits of those witnesses three days in advance as required by Section 5, Rule 11 of the NTC Rules. While the rule includes the phrase “as far as practicable,” this does not permit dispensing with the requirement altogether. Technical rules may be relaxed only for the furtherance of justice, which was not present here.