PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE MEDINA, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIONER AND OSCAR L. NOBLEJAS, RESPONDENTS.

The Public Service Commission received complaints
to the effect that Philippine Long Distance Telephone Compa­ny was discriminating in its servicing
and grant of tele­phone installations. 
Specifically, it was reported that an application for telephone connection had been filed with said
company by Cesar J. Bautista; that said appli­cation had been coursed through
the Public Service Commis­sion and approved by it; that notwithstanding such
appro­val, Philippine Long
Distance Telephone Company has failed to act on said application and, instead,
accorded priority to other applicants whose applications were not approved by
the Public Service Commission.

Acting thereon, Public
Service Commissioner Enrique Medina issued on March 19, 1965 an order requiring
Philip­pine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT for short), to appear before
Public Service Commission on March 25, 1965, at 9:00 A.M., to show
cause why the applied telephone of Cesar J. Bautista should not be installed
and why other applications, not approved by the Commission, have been favorably
acted upon.  And in the same order, an
application for telephone connection filed by Oscar L. Noblejas, re­ceived by the Commission, was endorsed to PLDT for
compliance.

At the proceedings held
on March 25, 1965,
docketed as Case No. 65-16-OC, Commissioner Medina advised PLDT’s
counsel that the complaint against PLDT was for inadequate service. 
PLDT requested a copy of the complaint but Com­missioner Medina ruled
that it was not necessary to pro­vide
PLDT with such copy.

PLDT then informed the Commissioner that Cesar J. Bautista did
file with PLDT on June 2, 1964
an applica­tion for a telephone connection. 
It however maintained that Oscar L. Noblejas
had not filed any application ex­cept that endorsed by the Commission in its
aforementioned order.  And PLDT stated
that upon its receipt of said or­der, on March 23, 1963, it entered an application in the name of Noblejas in its file of requests
for telephone service.

At PLDT’s
instance, Commissioner Medina allowed it to present evidence to show why
the telephone service ap­plied for by the complainants had not yet been
installed.

PLDT called its first witness, Col. Candido
G. Bautista, its General Commercial Superintendent, to testify on the priority
status of the applications under conside­ration.  Said witness was thereupon questioned by Commis­sioner Medina.  And in the process, he testified that Bautista’s requested telephone was not
yet then installed because PLDT was
still enlarging its Makati Central Of­fice and
because there were several prior applications.

At his own
instance, Commissioner Medina disconti­nued the testimony of the first witness
and called on Teodoro Bacani,
an official of the Public Service Commis­sion, who testified on the prevalence of complaints of PLDT
customers that preferences are made in repairs and installations of telephones on the basis of some bribe given to
PLDT linemen.

And, thereafter, Commissioner Medina issued an order dated March 25,
1965, requiring
PLDT to install a tele­phone at the residence of Cesar J. Bautista within fif­teen
days and another telephone in the residence of Oscar L. Noblejas
within twenty days from the date of said order.

Further hearings in the case were set for April 21, 22 and 23, 1965.

Subsequently, on March
31, 1965, PLDT installed Ce­sar J. Bautista’s telephone. Such fact
was manifested to the Commission and
the incident as to said complainant was closed.

At the hearing on April
21, 1965, Commissioner Medi­na again called on
PLDT Superintendent Col. Bautista.  Af­ter
questioning him, Commissioner Medina called another witness, Luciano de la Rosa, over PLDT’s counsel’s objec­tions, who up to this time had not been able to
propound questions on the witnesses. 
Said witness testified that his
application for telephone service was installed only after a long delay because
of his refusal to give money to PLDT and that his telephone is always
intercepted by a party line.

After de la Rosa’s testimony, PLDT’s
counsel was fi­nally given the chance to ask its witness, Col. Bautista,
questions on direct examination.  Said
witness testified that while PLDT, in
view of the completion of its expan­sion program in Makati, Rizal, was able to serve the appli­cation
of Cesar J. Bautista, it could not immediately pro­vide telephone service to Oscar L. Noblejas.  The PLDT, he explained, still had to
attend to the applications for te­lephone
services in the area of Noblejas‘ residence
which were filed way ahead of Noblejas‘ recorded date
of applica­tion and that, therefore, Noblejas‘ application can be at­tended to by PLDT only
after those prior applications shall have been served.

On May 4, 1965, PLDT filed a
motion for reconsidera­tion of the order of March 25, 1965.

On May 13, 1965,
the hearing was resumed. Engr. Con­rado
Tadle of the Public
Service Commission, upon being called and questioned by Commissioner
Medina, testified that cable facilities were available to serve the tele­phone
application of Noblejas.  Said witness, however, admitted on cross
examination that he did not verify whether there were other applicants for
telephone service in the area where Noblejas resides, who had filed prior applica­tions.  PLDT then agreed to provide the map showing
the route passed by the cable mentioned by Engr. Tadle, con­taining indications of the various prior
applicants for telephone service.  Said
map was later submitted (Exh. 6).

At said hearing, also, Commissioner Medina denied PLDT’s motion for reconsideration, by an order dated May 13, 1965.

After PLDT formally offered its evidence, Commissio­ner Medina,
on June 2, 1965, issued an
order containing this dispositive portion:

“FOR ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Commission
reiterates its order dated March 25, 1965 with respect to the application of
Oscar L. Noblejas and orders the same be serviced
immediately; and considering that the period of 20 days granted in said order,
has already expired, PLDT is hereby fined Fif­ty (P50.00) Pesos a day, everyday
until the telephone service applied for is fully ins­talled and in service;
provided, however, that if the telephone service of Oscar L. Noblejas is connected and completed on or before June 10,
1965, the fine herein imposed will be con­sidered condoned and wiped out.

“Oscar L. Noblejas as well as the
respon­dent PLDT are hereby ordered to inform the PSC in writing on June 11,
1965, whether the telephone applied for has been connected or not.

“Should there be other telephone applica­tions in the files of
PLDT unserved until now, without bearing the dates of
filing in the PSC, stamped thereon by the PSC, the PLDT is hereby required to
advise the applicants to renew said applications and course them thru the PSC,
for the purpose of recording thereon the date or dates of filing before the PSC
and such dates shall determine the priority to be ob­served by the PLDT.”

PLDT then appealed to Us from the orders dated March 25,
1965, May 13, 1965
and June 2, 1965.

Appellant’s contentions are reducible to two: First, that said orders are invalid for not having
been signed by three Commissioners,
instead of containing Commissioner Medina’s signature alone; and, second, the
Public Service Commission cannot legally order it to grant the application of Noblejas for telephone connection ahead of others who had
filed prior applications with PLDT.

Assuming that the present case involves an
uncontes­ted proceedings not requiring the vote of three Commissio­ners,
which We do not here decide, the point that is here controlling is that the
records clearly and undisputedly show that there were applicants prior to Noblejas who have not yet been served with telephone
connections.

Said applicants, appellees would argue,
cannot be con­sidered entitled to priority because their applications have not
been approved by the Public Service Commission. 
And Commissioner Medina would impose the system of deter­mining priority
in accordance with the date of approval of the application by the Commission
rather than their fi­ling with the PLDT.

In support of this procedure,
Commissioner Medina cites the so-called conditions allegedly imposed on PLDT in several cases where
the latter applied for, and was granted, permission of the Commission to
increase its rates and to expand its services.

Said conditions,
contained in the decision in PSC Cases Nos. 61-5270, 61-5280, 61-5271, 61-2111 and 62-4168, dated July 31, 1963, included inter alia, the
following:

“(2) x x x (c) In order to avoid
complaints of favoritism and/or suspicions of discrimination or that the new
telephone connections or transfer are effected for money considera­tion, all
telephone connections and/or transfers after the receipt of this decision shall
be undertaken only upon prior approval of the Public Service Commission.”

This point has already been resolved by Us
in PLDT vs. Medina, L-24340, July 18, 1967, wherein We ruled that pursuant to an amended decision of the Public
Service Commission, dated January 9, 1964, in the abovementioned cases, all the conditions imposed in the original
deci­sion were removed and deleted.

It follows, therefore, that the priority in granting applications for telephone service cannot be the dates
of approval of said application by the Public Service Commis­sion, since no
such approval is required.  The priority should be determined in
accordance with the dates of filing of the application with PLDT, the general
rule provided for in Sec. 3 of Public Act 3436, the law granting telephone franchise to the PLDT. 
And following such a priority system, applicant Noblejas is not entitled to installment of his requested telephone until the
prior applicants concerned shall have been served. Respondent Commission,
therefore, should have ordered PLDT to service the prior applicants first,
instead of applicant Noblejas.

WHEREFORE, the appealed orders are hereby reversed and set
aside and the present complaint against PLDT is hereby dismissed, but PLDT is
hereby enjoined to service the applications in the priority of their dates of
filing with PLDT.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., (Acting C.J.), Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.