GR 93237; (November, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 93237 November 6, 1992
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), petitioner, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) and JUAN A. ALEGRE, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Juan A. Alegre’s wife sent two rush telegrams via petitioner RCPI’s facilities on March 17, 1989. Both telegrams failed to reach their destinations on the expected dates. Alegre filed a letter-complaint with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) against RCPI for poor service, requesting punitive sanctions. The NTC took cognizance of the complaint, directed RCPI to answer, and set hearings. RCPI moved to dismiss the case on grounds that Alegre was not the real party in interest, the NTC lacked jurisdiction, and the proceedings violated due process. The NTC denied the motion to dismiss, proceeded with hearings in RCPI’s absence despite notifications, and on November 27, 1989, found RCPI administratively liable for deficient service. It imposed a fine of P1,000.00 based on a delay of days for each telegram. RCPI’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has jurisdiction to administratively impose fines on a telegraph company for failing to render adequate service to a consumer.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the NTC has NO jurisdiction to impose such administrative fines. The power and authority of the NTC, as the successor of the Board of Communications and the Public Service Commission, are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied by law. Executive Order No. 546, which outlines NTC’s functions, does not explicitly grant the power to impose administrative fines on public service utilities for deficient service to consumers. The Court cited established doctrine, including Globe Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service Commission, which held that the Commission’s power to impose an administrative fine under Section 21 of the Public Service Act (C.A. 146) is limited to cases of violation of the terms and conditions of any certificate or any orders, decisions, or regulations of the Commission. In this case, the complaint involved an alleged failure in service to a customer, not a violation of an NTC certificate, order, decision, or regulation. Therefore, the NTC decision was rendered without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the NTC decision and made the temporary restraining order permanent, without prejudice to the aggrieved party filing the proper action in the proper forum.