G.R. No. L-13695. December 29, 1960
RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY AND HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMM…
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
business in the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as RCA), is the grantee by
assignment of a legislative franchise to operate wireless communication stations
between the Philippines and foreign countries. The Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company, one of herein appellees (hereafter referred to as PLDTCO), is
a domestic corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines, which
was granted a legislative franchise under Act No. 3436 to maintain and operate
telephone systems in specified routes in the Philippines (sec. 1) and
radio-telephonic communications between those routes as well as between the
Islands and telephone system of other countries (sec. 2).
On March 20, 1933, PLDTCO entered into an agreement with the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, wherein both companies agreed to establish
telephone services between the Philippines and the United States. As it lacked
the necessary equipment and facilities, PLDTCO on the same date entered into
another agreement with RCA whereby the latter constituted itself a carrier of
PLDTCO’s telephone messages to and from the United States. For the use of its
radio transmitters and receivers as such carrier, RCA, under the agreement,
received a share of 75% (later reduced to 50%) of the tolls accruing to PLDTCO.
The term of the agreement was for five years and “shall thereafter continue in
force.until terminated by either party giving the other 24 calendar months
previous notice in writing.”
On January 3, 1956, PLDTCO sent RCA a notice of termination of its
arrangements with the latter, the same to be effective not later than February
2, 1958, and three months later, filed an application with the Secretary of
Public Works and Communications, through the Radio Control Board, for authority
to construct and operate a radio-telephonic station of its own at Marilao,
Bulacan, and for the assignment to it of appropriate radio frequencies. Upon
learning of the application, RCA opposed the same on the grounds that the Radio
Control Board had no authority to issue the permit applied for before the Public
Service Commission has issued the necessary certificate of public necessity and
convenience and without the previous approval of the President of the
Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications as provided in PLDTCO’s franchise.
Not content with said opposition, RCA filed a petition for prohibition (Civil
Case No. 32275) with the Court of First Instance of Manila to prevent the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Radio Control Board from
proceeding further on PLDTCO’s pending application. The lower court, however,
upon motion of the respondents, dismissed the petition for lack of cause of
action and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it had previously
issued, holding that since under the law the location, installation or operation
of any radio-telephonic equipment must be passed upon and considered by the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the said official has the power or
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the telephone company’s application. From
this order of dismissal, RCA appealed and the case was docketed in this Court as
G. R. No. L-12937. .
In the meantime, as RCA failed to reinstate the writ of preliminary
injunction, the Radio Control Board, upon direction of the Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, proceeded to consider PLDTCO’s application and on
October 31, 1957 issued Construction Permit No. 352, authorizing it to construct
and install public trans-oceanic fixed radio stations at Marilao, Bulacan, and
allocating to it certain radio frequencies for the operation thereof.
Reconsideration of the issuance of the permit having denied by the Secretary of
Public Works and Communic tions, RCA on December 26, 1957, filed,the present
actioa in another branch of the Court of First Instance of Manilas (Civil Case
No. 34670) praying for injunction to restrain PLDTCO from operating the overseas
radio-telephone service which it proposes to operate under Construction Permit
No. 352. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the legislative
franchise purporting to authorize PLDTCO to operate overseas radio-telephone
service was unconstitutional; that for said PLDTCO to be able to operate the
proposed service, it was duty bound to secure first a permit from the President
of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, and the necessary authority from the Public Service Commission ;
and that the approval by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications of the
construction permit in favor of PLDTCO without previous hearing and opportunity
to plaintiff RCA to present evidence in support of its opposition was without
due process of law. PLDTCO opposed the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction as prayed for in the complaint, and together with the defendant
Secretary of Public Works and Communications, moved for the dismissal of the
action on the grounds of pendency of another (the prohibition case) between the
same parties for the same cause and of lack of cause of action. Sustaining the
motion on both grounds, the trial court in an order dated January 30, 1958
dismissed the case. Reconsideration of the said order having been denied,. RCA
appealed directly to this Court.
The appeal is without merit.
There is, obviously, not only identity of parties but also identity of rights
asserted and relief prayed for between the prohibition case (G. R. No. 12937)
and the present action for injunction. The real issue between the parties in
both cases, is whether or. not the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
has the power or jurisdiction to authorize PLDTCO to construct and operate a
radio station for overseas telephone services, it being alleged by RCA that such
authority or jurisdiction is vested in the President of the Philippines and in
the Public Service Commission. The fact that the prohibition case was instituted
before the construction permit was granted, while the case at bar was filed
after such permit had been granted is of no legal consequence. The essential
cause of action in both cases is the same and, needless to say, the decision in
the prohibition case will necessarily dispose of the issues in the present
complaint and conclude the controversy between the parties.
Neither may it validly be argued that there is no identity of relief prayed
for since the remedies resorted to in the two cases are different. Well settled
is the rule that a party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a
different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle
that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the
same parties or their privies. (Francisco vs. Bias, et al., 93 Phil.,
1; Wenzel, etc., et al. vs. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., et
al., 108 Phil., 530; 57 Off. Gaz., [39] 6958; Evangelista vs. Court of
Agrarian Relations of Iloilo, et al., 109 Phil., 961; 60 Off. Gaz., [48]
7932.)
It is true that in the present case, RCA also claims that the franchise of
PLDTCO in section 2 of Act No. 3436— authorizing it to operate overseas
radio-telephonic communication service—is unconstitutional, the same not being
included in the title of said Act, and that the grant of the’ construction
permit was in violation of the law on due process since RCA was not given
opportunity to be heard in support of its opposition. The issue of the
constitutionality of the franchise of PLDTCO to operate overseas radio-telephone
service, however, was never raised in the prior prohibition case and is being
raised for the first time in the present action for injunction. In this
connection, it should be stated tnat this Court on July 31, 1959 rendered its
decision in the prohibition case (G. R. No. L-12937), dismissing RCA’s appeal
and upholding the power or jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications to hear tlce application as well as the authority of PLDTCO to
engage in overseas telephone services under the provisions of its legislative
franchise. Pursuant to the principle of res judicata that judgment is
conclusive as to future proceedings at law not only as to every matter which was
offered and received to sustain the claim or demand, but as to any other
admissible matter that could have been offered for that purpose. (Roa
vs. De la Cruz et al., 107 Phil., 8; 60 Off. Gaz., [31] 4624.)
As to the claim that the issuance of the construction permit was without due
process, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications not having given RCA
the opportunity to present evidence in support of its opposition to PLDTCO’s
application, suffice it to say that in administrative proceedings, hearing is
only necessary in those cases where the statute so requires. A cursory reading
of the Radio Control Law (Act No. 3846, as amended) shows that, unlike in other
proceedings or instances specified in section 3, paragraphs d and 1, of the said
law, no hearing is required in the consideration by the Secretary of Public
Wotks and Communications of any application for the installation, establishment,
or operation of a radio stationl (paragraph k). At any rate, even assuming that
a hearing is required, RCA must be considered to have waived its right thereto,
its counsel having addressed a letter to the Radio Control Board saying that
“little would be gained by arguing the matter both before yourselves and before
the Public Service Commission.”
In view of the foregoing, we deem it idle to pass upon the other questions
raised by the parties.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
appellant.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed.