THE Court of Appeals (CA) has denied a regulator’s plea to reverse a decision reviving the bid of PLDT Inc. to exclude other telecommunication companies (telcos) from providing high-speed network and connectivity in Makati City and the Bonifacio Global City (BGC).
In a two-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz, the CA’s Seventeenth Division affirmed its July 25, 2016, decision, which granted PLDT’s petition.
The appellate court held that the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) failed to come up with new arguments that would allow the granting of its motion for reconsideration.
“Indeed, the matter advanced is but a dull rehash, which have already been judiciously passed upon in our decision dated July 25, 2016,” the CA ruled. “It is but proper, therefore, that this case should not be dismissed but be allowed to continue.
Since there is nothing novel or exciting in the motion for reconsideration [that] would warrant a modification or reversal of our decision, the motion should be summarily treated.”
In its decision, the CA reversed and set aside the order issued by the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City on October 14, 2013, which dismissed the complaint filed by PLDT seeking to enjoin the implementation of NTC Memorandum Circular 05-05-2002.
The regulator’s order was titled “Rules and Regulations on the Provision of High Speed Networks and Connectivity to the IT Hub Areas”.
Instead, the appellate court, reinstated the case filed by PLDT and remanded the same to the RTC in Quezon City for further proceedings and for it to resolve the issues “with dispatch.”
The NTC memorandum declared as “free zone” parts of Makati City, specifically the BGC and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) bounded by Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Edsa, Kalayaan Avenue, Lawton Avenue, Mc Kinley Road (Edsa), Arnaiz Avenue (Pasay Road) and Chino Roces (Pasong Tamo).
These free zones are described as areas where any telco with a valid franchise can be allowed to provide related services.
In its complaint before the trial court, PLDT asserted the NTC memorandum is void as it contradicts Republic Act 7925, which mandates the NTC to give priority to the areas that are not yet served in cases of expansions of telecommunications network.
Likewise, PLDT said the NTC ruling’s implementation is “unfair and arbitrary” because the IT Hub areas were declared as “free zones” sans the benefit of public hearing and consultation.
PLDT added the NTC order violates the Manuel V. Pangilinan-led firm’s memorandum of agreement with Fort Bonifacio Development Corp. (FBDC) in 2002 for the acquisition of Smart Communications Inc. and FBDC’s shares in Bonifacio Communications Corp., a communications infrastructure provider.
The MOA between the FBDC and PLDT for the acquisition of FBDC’s shares in BCC provides a condition that PLDT will be “the sole provider of basic telecommunication and related services in the areas declared by NTC as free zones.
Despite the agreement, BCC said it discovered in 2007 that Globe Telecom Inc. subsidiary Innove installed and constructed their own communications infrastructure within the area reserved for BCC.
To assert its rights under the deal, the BCC said it sent several demand letters to FBDC, Globe and Innove to desist from impairing the contractual rights of BCC.
This prompted Innove to bring the matter to the NTC asking that the latter enforce MC 05-0502002 within the BGC.
PLDT then questioned NTC’s decision alleging the government regulator sided with Innove. The telco filed a complaint before the
RTC in Quezon City with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the implementation of the circular.
The RTC in Quezon City, however, dismissed PLDT’s complaint for being premature. The lower court held that PLDT failed to exhaust the administrative remedies before elevating the matter before the court.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Henri Jean Paul Inting.