G.R. No. 205875 & 208916, June 30, 2015
Liberty Broadcasting Network, Inc., now known as WI-TRIBE TELECOMS, INC. and National Telecommunications Commission, Petitioners, vs. Atlocom Wireless System, Inc., Respondent.

FACTS

Atlocom Wireless System, Inc. (Atlocom) is a grantee of a legislative franchise. On October 8, 2003, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued an Order granting Atlocom a Provisional Authority (PA) to operate a Multi-Point Multi-Channel Distribution System (MMDS) in Metro Manila, valid for eighteen months until April 8, 2005. A certification dated October 22, 2003 identified frequencies 2572-2596 MHz for Atlocom’s system. Atlocom requested an extension of its PA. On August 23, 2005, NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 06-08-2005 re-allocating various frequency bands for broadband wireless access. On December 23, 2008, NTC denied Atlocom’s motion for extension, citing the re-allocation. Liberty Broadcasting Network, Inc. (LBNI) was later assigned frequency bands covering 2572-2596 MHz under the same circular. Atlocom filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin the implementation of the circular and reinstate its frequencies, alleging deprivation without notice and hearing. The RTC denied Atlocom’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, granting a preliminary prohibitory injunction to enjoin NTC from implementing the circular insofar as the 2572-2596 MHz frequencies are concerned and enjoining LBNI from using them during the pendency of the civil case. LBNI and NTC filed separate petitions before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) whether Atlocom complied with the requisites for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction; and (2) whether LBNI’s motion to file counter-bond was correctly denied by the CA.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversing the CA Decision. The Court held that Atlocom failed to establish a clear and unmistakable right warranting the protection of a preliminary injunction. The certification identifying frequencies for Atlocom was merely provisional and contingent upon the grant of a PA, which had expired. The Court found no violation of due process as NTC published a notice of public hearing for the circular, and Atlocom did not participate. The Court also ruled that the CA erred in denying LBNI’s motion to file a counter-bond, as Section 6, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court allows the filing of a counter-bond to dissolve an injunction if the applicant can be fully compensated for damages. The CA’s conclusion that LBNI’s offer was insufficient was a technical determination it was not qualified to make. The Court dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA.