Facts:
The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) were embroiled in a legal dispute over the proper basis for the computation of the Supervision and Regulation Fees (SRF) charged by the NTC. The SRF is mandated under Section 40(e) of the Public Service Act (PSA) as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 325.
The NTC assessed the SRF on PLDT based on the market value of PLDT’s outstanding capital stock inclusive of stock dividends. PLDT objected to this assessment, arguing that the SRF should be based on the par value of its outstanding capital stock, excluding stock dividends. PLDT’s initial protest and subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied by the NTC.
The disagreement led to an appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which modified the NTC’s ruling, determining that the SRF should be based on the par value of PLDT’s outstanding capital stock, excluding stock dividends. The Supreme Court of the Philippines was then sought for final judgment on the matter under G.R. No. 127937. The Court ruled that the SRF “should be based neither on the par value nor the market value of the outstanding capital stock but on the value of the stocks subscribed or paid including the premiums paid therefor.”
PLDT sought clarification from the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the SRF basis. The Supreme Court, in a resolution, reiterated its stance and denied PLDT’s interpretation, which excluded stock dividends from the SRF coverage.
Consequently, the NTC issued new SRF assessments to PLDT that included stock dividends. PLDT challenged these assessments in a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition before the CA, questioning the inclusion of stock dividends in the SRF coverage and the similarity of the new assessments to the previous ones.
The CA dismissed PLDT’s petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction it had earlier granted. PLDT’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. This spurred the filing of the instant petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, which is now the subject of the present case brief.
Issues:
The issues before the Supreme Court were:
1. Whether stock dividends are included within the coverage of the SRF as part of the outstanding capital stock of PLDT.
2. Whether the new NTC assessments violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 127937.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision and held that the petition is bereft of merit. It ruled that stock dividends should be considered part of the outstanding capital stock of a corporation and, thus, are subject to the SRF. Stock dividends, although distributed as a book entry and not by actual payments to the corporation at the time of issuance, represent a distribution from the corporation’s unrestricted retained earnings and should be valued as such in assessing the SRF.
The Court likewise held that the NTC’s assessments, based on the schedule of capital stock submitted by PLDT, were presumed correct absent proof by PLDT of actual payment figures received for the original issuance of its capital stock.
Doctrine:
The doctrine established in the case reiterated the “Trust Fund” doctrine, emphasizing that the capital subscribed to a corporation forms a trust fund for the payment of debts of the corporation and cannot be returned to stockholders until after creditors are satisfied. Furthermore, it confirmed that stock dividends are an integral part of the capital structure and should be treated as such in assessments like the SRF.
Class Notes:
– In assessing Supervision and Regulation Fees, the basis should be the value of stocks subscribed or paid, including the premiums paid therefor.
– The capital stock of a corporation, including stock dividends, forms a trust fund for the payment of corporate debts (Trust Fund Doctrine), which should not be distributed to stockholders except in the form of dividends from unrestricted retained earnings.
– Stock dividends, though not distributed by actual payments to the corporation, have a monetary equivalent that comes from the corporation’s unrestricted retained earnings, and thus are subject to SRF.
Historical Background:
The historical context of this case reflects the ongoing efforts of regulatory bodies like the NTC to enforce relevant provisions of legislation such as the Public Service Act regarding financial obligations of public service entities towards regulatory supervision. It also highlights jurisprudential developments in the understanding of corporate capital structure and the implications for government-imposed fees and supervision costs.
Leave a Reply