G.R. No. L-66683. April 23, 1990.
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CORPORATION and CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, respondents.

FACTS

On January 4, 1984, private respondent Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) filed an application with the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for the approval of rates for its Digital Transmission Service Facilities under NTC Case No. 84-003. Without prior notice or hearing to other telecommunications companies, the NTC issued an order on January 25, 1984, provisionally approving the proposed rates. The order stated that the approval was based on a prima facie finding that the rates were just and reasonable and that the modern facilities should be made available to users in the public interest. The NTC directed that a hearing be set within the 30-day period prescribed by law.
Petitioners Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc., Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation, and Clavecilla Radio System, who are competitors in the telecommunications industry, were not initially included in the notice of hearing. They learned of the provisional authority and appeared at the subsequent hearing to move for time to file an opposition. They then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, seeking to annul the NTC’s order for lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the National Telecommunications Commission gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing a provisional authority to PLDT without prior notice and hearing.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the assailed NTC order. The Court held that the NTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Under Section 16(c) of the Public Service Act ( Commonwealth Act No. 146 ), the NTC is explicitly empowered to approve rates proposed by public services provisionally and without a hearing, provided it calls a hearing thereon within thirty days thereafter. The NTC complied with this statutory requirement by issuing its provisional order and then setting the case for hearing within the mandated period. The provisional nature of the approval and the scheduled full hearing are adequate safeguards against any potential abuse.
The Court further ruled that the authority to issue such ex parte provisional permits is based on the necessity of meeting urgent public needs. The legal presumption is that rates fixed by the authorized administrative agency are reasonable, and courts will not interfere with such administrative actions prior to their finality absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. The petitioners’ contention that PLDT’s application was for a new service outside its franchise, and thus beyond the NTC’s jurisdiction for a provisional rate approval, was not sustained. The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the NTC’s findings, emphasizing that administrative agencies with specialized expertise are accorded respect and finality in their determinations when supported by substantial evidence. The temporary restraining order issued earlier was set aside.