RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI), PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL  TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) AND JUAN A. ALEGRE, RESPONDENTS.

Private respondent Juan A. Alegre’s wife, Dr. Jimena Alegre, sent
two (2) RUSH telegrams through petitioner RCPI’s facilities in Taft Ave.,
Manila at 9:00 in the morning of 17 March 1989 to his sister and brother-in-law
in Valencia, Bohol and another sister-in-law in Espiritu, Ilocos Norte, with
the following identical texts:

“MANONG POLING DIED INTERMENT TUESDAY”^[1]

Both telegrams did not reach their destinations on the expected
dates. Private respondent filed a
letter-complaint against the RCPI with the National Telecommunications
Commission (NTC) for poor service, with a request for the imposition of the
appropriate punitive sanction against the company.

Taking cognizance of the complaint, NTC directed RCPI to answer
the complaint and set the initial hearing of the case to 2 May 1989. After two (2) resettings, RCPI moved to
dismiss the complaint on the following grounds:

1.  Juan Alegre is not the
real party in interest;

2.  NTC has no jurisdiction
over the case;

3.  the continued hearing of
the case violates its constitutional right to due process of law.^[2]

RCPI likewise moved for deferment of scheduled hearings until
after final determination of its motion to dismiss.

On 15 June 1989, NTC proceeded with the hearing and received
evidence for private respondent Juan Alegre. On 3 October 1989, RCPI’s motion to dismiss was denied, thus:

“The herein complainant is the husband of the sender of the ‘rush’
telegram that respondent allegedly
failed to deliver in a manner respondent bound itself to undertake, so his legal
interest in this administrative case cannot be seriously called in
question. As regards the issue of
jurisdiction, the authority of the Commission to hear and decide this case
stems from its power of control and supervision over the operation of public
communication utilities as conferred upon it by law.

Besides, the filing of a
motion to dismiss is not allowed by the rules (Section 1, Rule 12, Rules of
Practice and Procedures). Following,
however, the liberal construction of the rules, respondent (sic) motion shall
be treated as its answer or be passed upon after the conclusion of the hearing
on the merits. x x x”^[3]

Hearings resumed in the absence of petitioner RCPI which was,
however, duly notified thereof. On 27
November 1989, NTC disposed of the controversy in the following manner:

“WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Commission finds
respondent administratively liable for deficient and inadequate service defined
under Section 19(a) of C.A. 146 and hereby imposes the penalty of FINE payable
within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof in the aggregate amount of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) for:

1.     
Rush Telegram sent to Valencia, Bohol on March 17, 1989 and
received on March 21, 1989

3 days x P200.00 per day
= P600.00

2.     
Rush Telegram sent to Espiritu, Ilocos Norte on March 17, 1989
and received March 20, 1989

2 days x P200.00 per day
= P400.00

Total = P1,000.00

ENTERED. November 27, 1989.”^[4]

A motion for reconsideration by RCPI reiterating averments in its earlier motion to dismiss was denied
for lack of merit;^[5]
hence, this petition for review invoking C.A. 146 Sec. 19 (a) which limits the
jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission (precursor of the NTC) to the
fixing of rates. RCPI submits that its
position finds support in two (2) decided cases^[6]
identical with the present one. Then
Justice (later Chief Justice) Fernando writing for the Court stated:

“x x x There can be no justification then for the Public Service Commission imposing the
fines in these two petitions. The
law cannot be any clearer. The only power it possessed over radio
companies, as noted was the (sic) fix rates. It could not take to task a radio company for any negligence or
misfeasance. It was bereft of such competence. It was not vested witih such authority. x x x

The Public Service
Commission having been abolished by virtue of a Presidential Decree, as set
forth at the outset, and a new Board of Communications having been created to
take its place, nothing said in this decision has reference to whatever powers
are now lodged in the latter body ……” (Footnotes omitted)

Two (2) later cases,^[7]
adhering to the above tenet ruled:

“Even assuming that the respondent Board of
Commu­nications has the power of jurisdiction over petitioner in the exercise
of its supervision to insure adequate public service, petitioner cannot be
subjected to payment of fine under sec. 21 of the Public Service Act, because
this provision of the law subjects to a fine every public service that violates
or falls (sic) to comply with the terms and conditions of any certificate or
any orders, decisions and regulations of the Commission…..”

The Office of the Solicitor General now claims that the cited
cases are no longer applicable, that the power and authority of the NTC to
impose fines is incidental to its power to regulate public service utilities
and to supervise telecommunications facilities, which are now clearly defined
in Section 15, Executive Order No. 546 dated 23 July 1979, thus:

“Functions of the Commission. The Commission shall exercise the following functions:

‘x x x

b. Establish, prescribe and regulate the
areas of operation of particular operators of the public service
communications;

x x x

h. Supervise and
inspect the operation of radio stations and telecommunications facilities.’”

Regulatory administrative agencies necessarily impose sanctions,
adds the Office of the Solicitor General. RCPI was fined based on the finding of the NTC that it failed to
undertake adequate service in delivering two (2) rush tele­grams. NTC takes the view that its power of
supervision was broadened by E.O. 546, and that this development superseded the
ruling in RCPI vs. Francisco Santiago and companion cases.

The issues of due process and real parties in interest do not
have to be discussed in this case. This
decision will dwell on the primary question of jurisdiction of the NTC to
administratively impose fines on a telegraph company which fails to render
adequate service to a consumer.

E.O. 546, it will be observed, is couched in general terms. The NTC stepped “into the shoes” of the
Board of Communications which exercised powers pursuant to the Public Service
Act. The power to impose fines should
therefore be read in the light of the Francisco
Santiago case because
subsequent legislation did not grant additional powers to the Board of
Communications. The Board in other
words, did not possess the power to impose administrative fines on public
services rendering deficient service to customers, ergo its successor
cannot arrogate unto itself such power, in the absence of legislation. It is true that the decision in RCPI vs.
Board of Communications seems to have modified the Santiago ruling
in that the later case held that the Board of Communications can impose fines
if the public service entity violates or fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of any certificate or any order, decision or regulation of the
Commission. But can private
respondent’s complaint be similarly treated when the complaint seeks redress of
a grievance against the company?^[8] NTC has no jurisdiction to impose a
fine. Globe Wireless Ltd. vs. Public
Service Commission (G.R. No. L-27520, 21 January 1987, 147 SCRA 269) says
so categorically.

“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.

x x x

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 has
nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of the very limited
jurisdiction of the Commission over petitioner.

Morever, under Section 21 of C.A. 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.”

No substantial change has been brought about by Executive Order
No. 546 invoked by the Solicitor General’s Office to bolster NTC’s
jurisdiction. The Executive Order is
not an explicit grant of power to impose administrative fines on public service utilities, including
telegraphic agencies, which have failed to render adequate service to
customers. Neither has it expanded the
coverage of the supervisory and regulatory power of the agency. There appears to be no alternative but to reiterate the settled doctrine in
administrative law that:

“Too basic in administrative law to need citation of jurisprudence
is the rule that 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. . . (Globe Wireless case, supra).

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE for lack of jurisdiction of the NTC to render it. The temporary restraining order issued on 18
June 1990 is made PERMANENT without prejudice, however, to the filing by the
party aggrieved by the conduct of RCPI, of the proper action in the proper
forum. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman),
Griño-Aquino, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Medialdea, J., on leave.

^[1]
Exhibit “D”- NTC records

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 19-23

^[3]
Ibid., p. 24

^[4]
Ibid., p. 29

^[5]
Ibid., pp. 39-40

^[6]
RCPI vs. Francisco Santiago and Enrique Medina, G.R. No. L-29236, 21 August 1974 and RCPI vs. Constancio
Jaugan, G.R. No. L-29247, 21 August 1974, 58 SCRA 493

^[7]
RCPI vs. Board of Communications, G.R. No. L-43653, 29 November 1977 and
RCPI vs. Board of Communications, G.R. No. L-45378, 29 November 1977, 80
SCRA 471

^[8]
There is no doubt that when the complaint seeks damages in case of a breach of
contractual obligation on the part of the telecommunications company (failure
to send a telegram on time, included), the RTC has jurisdiction (see RCPI and
Globe Mackay and Radio Corporation vs. Rufus Rodriguez, G.R. No. 83768,
28 February 1990, 182 SCRA 899; RCPI vs. Court Of Appeals, et. al., G.R.
No. 79578, 13 March 1991, 195 SCRA 147