RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), PETITIONER, VS. BOARD OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DIEGO MORALES, RESPONDENTS.

These two petitions (G.R. No. L-43653 and G.R. L-45378) for
review by certiorari of the decisions of the Board of Communications in
BC Case No. 75-01-OC, entitled “Diego T. Morales vs. Radio Communications
of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI)” and BC Case No. 75-08-OC, entitled “Pacifico Innocencio vs. Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI), ” have been conso­lidated
as per resolution of this Court dated March 21, 1977, as they involve the same
issue as to whether the Board of Communications has jurisdiction over claims
for damages allegedly suffered by private respondents for failure to receive
telegrams sent thru the petitioner Radio Communications of the Philippines,
Inc., RCPI for short.

In BC Case No. 75-01-OC (G.R. No. L-43653) complainant respondent
Diego Morales claims that while he was in Manila
his daughter sent him a telegram on October
15, 1974 from Santiago,
Isabela, informing him of the death of his wife, Mrs.
Diego T. Morales.  The telegram sent thru
the petitioner RCPI however never reached him. 
He had to be informed personally about the death of his wife and so to
catch up with the burial of his wife, he had to take the trip by airplane to Isabela.  In its
answer petitioner RCPI claims that the telegram sent by respondent was
transmitted from Santiago, Isabela to its Message
Center at Cubao,
Quezon City
but when it was relayed from Cubao, the radio signal
became intermittent making the copy received at Sta. Cruz, Manila
unreadable and unintelligible.  Because
of the failure of the RCPI to transmit said telegram to him, respondent
allegedly suffered incon­venience and additional expenses and prays for
damages.

In BC Case No. 75-08-OC (G.R. No. L-45378) com­plainant
respondent Pacifico Innocencio
claims that on July 13, 1975
Lourdes Innocencio sent a telegram from Paniqui, Tarlac, thru the
facilities of the petitioner RCPI to him at Barrio Lomot,
Cavinti, Laguna for the purpose of informing him
about the death of their father.  The
telegram was never received by Pacifico Innocencio.  Inspite of the non-receipt and/or non-delivery of the
message sent to said address, the sender (Lourdes Innocencio)
has not been notified about its non-delivery. 
As a consequence Pacifico Innocencio
was not able to attend the internment of their father at Moncada,
Tarlac. 
Because of the failure of RCPI to deliver to him said telegram he
allegedly was “shocked when he learned about the death of their father
when he visited his hometown Moncada, Tarlac on August
14, 1975,” and thus suffered mental anguish and personal
inconveniences.  Likewise, he prays for
damages.

After hearing, the respondent Board in both cases held that the
service rendered by petitioner was inadequate and unsatisfactory and imposed
upon the petitioner in each case a disciplinary fine of P200 pursuant to
Section 21 of Commonwealth Act 146, as amended, by Presidential Decree No. 1 and
Letter of Implementation No. 1.

The main thrust of the argument of petitioner is that respondent
Board has no jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance of complaints for
injury caused by breach of contractual obligation arising from negligence covered
by Article 1170 of the Civil Code^[1]
and injury caused by quasi delict or
tort liability under Article 2176 of the Civil Code^[2]
which according to it should be ventilated in the proper courts of justice and
not in the Board of Communications.

We agree with petitioner RCPI. 
In one case We have ruled that the Public Service Commission and its
successor in interest, the Board of Communications, “being a creature of
the legislature and not a court, can exercise only such jurisdiction and powers
as are expressly or by necessary implication, conferred upon it by
statute”.^[3]
The functions of the Public Service Commission are limited and administrative
in nature and it has only jurisdiction and power as are expressly or by
necessary implication conferred upon it by statute.^[4]
As successor in interest of the Public Service Commission, the Board of
Communications exercises the same powers, jurisdiction and functions as that
provided for in the Public Service Act for the Public Service Commission.  One of these powers as provided under Section
129 of the Public Service Act governing the organization of the Specialized
Regulatory Board, is to issue certificate of public convenience.  But this power to issue certificate of public
convenience does not carry with it the power of supervision and control over
matters not related to the issuance of certificate of public convenience
or in the performance therewith in a manner suitable to promote public
interest.  But even assuming that the
respondent Board of Communications has the power or jurisdiction over
petitioner in the exercise of its supervision to insure adequate public
service, petitioner cannot be subjected to payment of fine under Section 21 of
the Public Service Act, because this provision of the law subjects to a fine
every public service that violates or fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of any certificate or any orders, decisions or regulations of the
Commission.  In the two cases before Us
petitioner is not being charged nor investigated for violation of the terms and
conditions of its certificate of public conve­nience or of any order, decision
or regulations of the respondent Board of Communications.  The complaint of res­pondents in the two
cases was that they were allegedly inconvenienced or injured by the failure of
the petitioner to transmit to them telegrams informing them of the deaths of
close relatives which according to them constitute breach of contractual
obligation through negligence under the Civil Code.  The charges, however, do not necessarily
involve petitioner’s failure to comply with its certificate of public
convenience or any order, decision or regulation of the respondent Board of
Communications.  It is clear from the
record that petitioner has not been charged of any violation or failure to
comply with the terms and conditions of its certificate of public convenience
or of any order, decision or regulation of the respondent Board.  The charge does not relate to the management
of the facilities and system of transmission of messages by petitioner in
accordance with its certificate of public convenience.  If in the two cases before Us complainants
Diego Morales and Pacifico Innocencio
allegedly suffered injury due to petitioner’s breach of contractual obligation
arising from negligence, the proper forum for them to ventilate their
grievances for possible recovery of damages against petitioner should be in the
courts and not in the res­pondent Board of Communications.  Much less can it impose the disciplinary fine
of P200 upon the petitioner.  In
Francisco Santiago vs. RCPI (G.R. No. L-29236) and Constancio
Langan vs. RCPI (G.R. No. L-29247), this Court
speaking thru Justice Enrique Fernando, ruled:

“There can be no justification then for the Public Service
Commission (now the Board of Communications as successor in interest) imposing
the fines in these two petitions.  The
law cannot be any clearer.  The only
power it possessed, over radio companies as noted was to fix rates.  It could not take to task a radio company for
any negligence or misfeasance.  It was
not vested with such authority.  What it
did then in these two petitions lacked the impress of validity.

“In the face of the provision itself; it is rather apparent
that the Public Service Commission lacked the required power to proceed against
petitioner.  There is nothing in Section
21 thereof which empowers it to impose a fine that calls for a different
conclusion.”

WHEREFORE, both decisions of res­pondent Board of
Communications in BC Case No. 75-01-OC and BC Case No. 75-08-OC are hereby
reversed, set aside, declared null and void for lack of juris­diction to take
cognizance of both cases.  Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Fernandez,
and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
ART. 1170.  Those who in the performance
of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who
in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.

^[2]
ART. 2176.  Whoever by act or omission
causes, damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done.  Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by
the provision of this Chapter.

^[3]
Filipino Bus Co. vs. Phil. Railway Co., 57 Phil. 860.

^[4]
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus
Co. vs. Public Service Commission,
L-25994 and L-26004-26046, August 31,
1966, 17 SCRA 1111.