G.R. No. L-5095 November 13, 1952
EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. VICENTE OROSA, ET AL., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

The petitioners-appellants are shipping companies doing business in the Philippines, which formed an association called “Associated Steamship Lines” with its domicile in Manila. The respondents-appellees constitute the “Radio Control Board” created by Executive Order No. 6 on July 17, 1946, as amended, to whom the President entrusted the function of issuing and granting licenses to operate radio stations under Commonwealth Act No. 729.
On December 7, 1949, the petitioners obtained original License No. 1530 to operate a private radio station in the port, which was to expire on July 2, 1950. On that same expiration date, the petitioners secured the first extension of the term until June 28, 1951, and were issued License No. 3051.
On May 19, 1951, the petitioners applied for a second extension of their License No. 3051, but the respondents refused to grant it, citing the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 729.
On June 6, 1951, the petitioners filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to compel the respondents to extend the term of their License No. 3051 for another year and to issue a preliminary mandatory injunction, which the court granted the following day.
On July 13, 1951, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts to the court and were granted time to file their respective memoranda.
On August 4, 1951, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the petition of the petitioners and dissolving the preliminary mandatory injunction issued on June 7. However, on August 8, the court amended the dispositive portion of its decision by adding: “The respondents have heretofore renewed or extended petitioner’s radio license No. 3051, which was to expire on June 28, 1951. In the interest of justice, and as no damages may be occasioned to the respondents, the latter are hereby ordered not to revoke or cancel the renewal or extension of petitioner’s radio license before the decision of this Court becomes final.”
The petitioners contend that having obtained the original permit which expired on July 2, 1950, and having been granted the first extension until June 28, 1951, they are still entitled to two more extensions. They argue that in computing the period for the extension of an original permit, the reckoning should be from the date of the original permit, not from the date of the approval of the law (June 2, 1946).

ISSUE

Whether the Radio Control Board, acting for the President, still had the authority to grant a second extension of the petitioners’ radio station license after July 2, 1950, under the terms of Commonwealth Act No. 729.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision, with costs against the petitioners-appellants.
Commonwealth Act No. 729, approved on June 2, 1946, authorized the President of the Philippines “for a period of four years from the approval of this Act” to grant permits to persons, associations, or corporations to construct, install, establish, and operate radio transmitting stations, commercial radio receiving stations, or television or broadcasting stations in the Philippines. The law provided that such permits shall be for a period not exceeding one year from their date, extendible for periods not exceeding one year at a time, but in no case shall the total of the extensions, including the original permit, exceed four years.
The Court held that the President’s authority to grant permits under the Act ended on July 2, 1950 (four years from June 2, 1946). The original permit (License No. 1530) was granted on December 7, 1949. The first extension was granted on July 2, 1950, expiring on June 28, 1951. Since the President’s power to grant permits terminated on July 2, 1950, the respondents, acting in his stead, could no longer grant a second extension after that date. The law clearly states the authorization is “for a period of four years from its approval.” The power to extend is merely an incident of the power to grant the original license. Once the authority to grant a license is lost, the authority to grant an extension is necessarily also lost.
The writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the Radio Control Board to grant an extension of a license when it had already lost such authority by provision of law. Mandamus is proper only when a tribunal, board, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.