GR L 63318; (August, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-63318 August 18, 1984
PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., respondents.
FACTS
The Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. (PCFI) filed a petition to annul a decision and order of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) dated November 22, 1982 and January 14, 1983, respectively, which approved the revised schedule of rates for the Subscriber Investment Plan (SIP) of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). The Supreme Court, in a decision dated November 25, 1983, annulled the challenged NTC orders. This initial decision was not unanimous. Subsequently, PLDT filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied in a resolution dated April 3, 1984. PLDT then filed a second motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Supreme Court should grant PLDT’s second motion for reconsideration and thereby reverse its prior decision annulling the NTC’s approval of the revised SIP rates.
RULING
The Court denied the second motion for reconsideration. The legal logic rests on the principle that administrative agencies must exercise their quasi-judicial powers in accordance with due process. The Court’s initial annulment was predicated on the NTC’s failure to conduct a proper hearing before approving the revised SIP rates, as mandated in the earlier case of Samuel Bautista vs. NTC, et al. This requirement for a hearing is essential to allow the public, including the petitioner and the government through the Solicitor General, to substantiate their objections to the proposed rates. The Court found that the NTC’s approval without such a hearing was procedurally infirm.
PLDT’s argument, invoking Presidential Decree No. 1874 which aimed to validate past NTC approvals of subscriber investment plans, was rejected. The Court noted that PD 1874 contained an explicit exception for orders pending review by the Supreme Court on the decree’s date of issuance. Since the present case was filed before PD 1874 was promulgated, the validation clause does not apply. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the State’s basic policy, as declared in PD No. 217, to attain efficient telephone service at the lowest reasonable cost. The SIP, as approved without a hearing, was viewed as an unreasonable imposition on a captive public by a utility company, compounding injury despite the company’s profits. Thus, the Court affirmed its prior ruling, upholding the necessity of a hearing to ensure the reasonableness of the rates and protect consumer interests.