7/28/2019 Bautista v. NTC
1/2
Samuel Bautista v. NTC and PLDT
G.R. No. L-60987, 31 August 1982
FACTS
PLDT filed an application on March 22, 1982 with the NTC to
increase the amount they chargecustomers/clients under the
Subscriber Investment Plan.
Petitioner Bautista, an applicant under the PLDT business
telephone plan, opposed thisapplication of PLDT as granting it
would adversely affect him and other PLDT subscribers.Bautista also
averred that there is no necessity for the increase as PLDT is
financially sound, had
an operating income of more than P500 million, and received an
investment from DevelopmentBank of the Philippines of P400
million.
NTC Commissioner Ceferino Carreon on April 14, 1982
provisionally approved PLDTsapplication [Subscriber Self-Financing
or Subscriber Investment Plan], finding that the proposed
plan was just and reasonable and within the limit set by P.D.
217 and public policy.
Bautista filed this petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court to set aside the NTC Order ofApril 14, 1982 provisionally
approving the revised subscriber investment plan. Bautista
allegedthat although the NTC has authority and jurisdiction to hear
PLDTs application, he alleges that:
(a) PD 217 DID NOT authorize the NTC to grant provisional
approval of theplan;
(b) PD prohibits telephone companies from charging more that 50
% of the costof the installed telephone line;
(c) Sec. 16(c) of the Public Service Act the NTC can only
provisionally approvethe rates proposed by public services;
(d) Neither the Public Service Law nor PD 217 authorized the NTC
to grantprovisional approval of applications to increase the amount
of subscriberinvestment plan.
Therefore the alleged NTC order is null and void. The OSG also
opposed the application ad therates are excessive and unreasonable
and persons from the low income and middle class will not
be able to afford them.
ISSUE
Whether the NTC erred in approving PLDTs application.
HELD
YES. The PLDT application did not seek to fix or determine
rates, but a proposed revisedsubscriber investment plan. The NTC
should have conducted a hearing before approving theapplication.
The NTCs provisional order is set aside.
RATIO:
The application filed by the PLDT with the National
Telecommunications Commission, underCase No. 82-27, is not a fixing
and/or determining of rate which the commission may have
approved provisionally and without the necessity of any hearing.
It is a request for the approval ofits proposed revised subscriber
investment plan.
