GR L 60987; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-60987 August 31, 1982
SAMUEL BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed an application with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for approval of a Revised Schedule of its Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP). Petitioner Samuel Bautista, an existing PLDT subscriber and an applicant for a new business line, opposed the application. He argued that the increase was unnecessary given PLDT’s substantial operating income and financial backing from the Development Bank of the Philippines, and that it would adversely affect subscribers.
The NTC, through an order dated April 14, 1982, found the proposed revised SIP rates prima facie just, reasonable, and within the limits of Presidential Decree No. 217. Consequently, the Commission provisionally approved the modified rates, effective immediately. Bautista filed this Petition for Certiorari to annul the NTC’s order, joined by the Solicitor General who contended the rates were excessive and contrary to state policy of encouraging widespread utility ownership.
ISSUE
Whether the National Telecommunications Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting provisional approval to PLDT’s revised Subscriber Investment Plan without a prior hearing.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NTC’s provisional approval. The legal logic centers on the distinction between rate-fixing and the approval of a subscriber investment plan, and the requisite procedure for the latter. Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act authorizes the NTC to provisionally approve “rates proposed by public services” without a hearing. However, the Court clarified that PLDT’s application was not merely for a rate increase under its existing SIP, but a request for approval of an entirely revised SIP schedule.
This distinction is crucial because the approval of a revised SIP involves policy considerations mandated by P.D. No. 217, such as attaining efficient service at the lowest reasonable cost and raising capital from a broad investor base. The Court ruled that these substantive policy determinations necessitate a hearing to allow opponents, including the petitioner and the Solicitor General, a full opportunity to substantiate their objections regarding the plan’s reasonableness, excessiveness, and financial necessity. By granting provisional approval without conducting such a hearing, the NTC acted without legal authority, as neither the Public Service Act nor P.D. No. 217 confers the power to provisionally approve a revised investment plan itself. The order was therefore issued with grave abuse of discretion and is null and void.