GLOBE WIRELESS LTD., PETITIONER, VS. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANTONIO B. ARNAIZ, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 27520 [Globe Wireless Ltd., vs.
Public Service Commission and Antonio B. Arnaiz].  —
Challenged in this petition for certiorari is the jurisdiction of the
defunct Public Service Commission [PSC] under Section 21 of Commonwealth Act No.
146, as amended, to discipline and impose a fine upon petitioner, Globe
Wireless, Ltd., a duly-organized Philippine corporation engaged in
international telecommunication business under a franchise granted by
Public Acts Nos. 3495, 3692 and 4150, as amended by Republic Act No.
4630.

A message addressed to Maria Diaz, Monte Esquina 30, Madrid,
Spain, filed by private
respondent Antonio B. Arnaiz with the telegraph office
of the Bureau of Telecommunications in Dumaguete
City was transmitted to the Bureau of
Telecommunications in Manila. 
It was forwarded to petitioner Globe Wireless Ltd. for transmission to
Madrid.  Petitioner
sent the message to the American Cable and Radio Corporation in
New York, which, in turn,
transmitted the same to the Empresa Nacional de Telecomunicaciones in
Madrid.  The
latter, however, mislaid said message, resulting in its non-delivery to the
addressee.

After being informed of said fact, private respondent Arnaiz sent to then Public Service Commissioner Enrique
Medina an unverified letter-complaint relating the incident.  The
complaint was docketed as PSC Case No. 65-39-OC and petitioner was required to
answer the same.  Petitioner, in its answer, questioned PSC’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
letter-complaint, even as it denied liability for the non-delivery of the
message to the addressee.

Hearing ensued, after which the PSC issued an order finding
petitioner “responsible for the inadequate and unsatisfactory service complained
of, in violation of the Public Service Act”, and ordering it “to
pay a fine of TWO HUNDRED [P200.00] PESOS under Sec. 21 of Com. Act 146, as
amended.” Petitioner was likewise required to refund the sum of P19.14 to the
remitter of the undelivered message.  [Annex “C”,
Petition, p. 23, Rollo].

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner
instituted the instant petition.

We find for petitioner.

Verily, Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended,
otherwise known as the Public Service Act, vested in the Public Service
Commission jurisdiction, supervision and control over all public services and
their franchises, equipment and other properties.  However, Section
5 of Republic Act No. 4630, the legislative franchise under which petitioner was
operating, limited respondent Commission’s jurisdiction over petitioner only to
the rate which petitioner may charge the public.  Thus,

“Sec. 5.  The Public Service Commission is hereby
given jurisdiction over the grantee only
with respect to the rates which the grantee may charge
the public subject to
international commitments made or adhered to by the Republic of the
Philippines.”
(Underscoring supplied.)

The act complained of consisted in petitioner having allegedly
failed to deliver the telegraphic message of private respondent to the addressee
in Madrid,
Spain. 
Obviously, such imputed negligence had nothing whatsoever to do
with the subject matter of the very limited jurisdiction of the Commission over
petitioner.

Moreover, under Section 21 of C.A. No. 146, as amended, the
Commission was empowered to impose an administrative fine in cases of violation
of or failure by a public service to comply with the terms and conditions of any
certificate or any orders, decisions or regulations of the Commission. 
Petitioner operated under a legislative franchise, so there were no terms nor conditions of any certificate issued by the
Commission to violate.  Neither was there any order, decision or
regulation from the Commission applicable to petitioner that the latter had
allegedly violated, disobeyed, defied or disregarded.

Too basic in administrative law to need citation of jurisprudence
is the rule that the jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies, like
respondent Commission, are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily
implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body; and any order
without or beyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective.  The
order under consideration belonged to this category.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant petition is hereby granted and the
order of respondent Public Service Commission in PSC Case No. 65-39-OC is set
aside for being null and void.