Phil. Consumer Foundation vs.

National Telecommunication
Commission

F a c t s : On March 20, 1980, PLDT filed an application with NTC for

thea p p r o v a l o f a R e v i s e d S c h e d u l e f o r i t s s u b s c r i b e r s I n v e s t m e n t
Plan(SIP). Consequently, NTC issued an ex-parte order which
provisionally approved the application.However, the approval was
set aside on the Supreme Court &ruled that "there was necessity
of a hearing by the commission beforeit should have acted on the
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e P L D T s o t h a t p u b l i c could air it's opposition".O n
Nov. 22, 1982, NTC permanently approved the new SIP rates,in
contemplation of PD 217 that allows NTC "to see to it that
thetherein declared policies for the telephone industry are
immediately implemented & for this purpose pertinent rules &
regulations may bepromulgated…

I s s u e : Whether or not the respondents acted with grave abuse of d i s c r e t i o n w h e n i t

approved the Revised SIP of PLDT in the absence of specific rules
and regulation implementing PD217 which is mandatory pre-
r e q u i s i t e f o r t h e a p p r o v a l o f s a i d S I P r a t e s . Ruling/

H e l d : Yes. Accordingly the decision of NTC was annulled & set aside.I t i s t h e d u t y o f
t h e r e s p o n d e n t N T C t o p r o m u l g a t e r u l e s a n d regulation. There is an
outright confusion among the rights of PLDT,t h e c o n s u m e r s a n d
government itself.The increase of SIP rates is untimely,
considering the economiccondition of the country. The approved
rates defeats the purpose of the decree which is to spread
ownership among the wide base of i n v e s t o r s .
Topic: Nature of the Rules of Statutory Construction
PCFI v NTC
GR No L-63318, November 25, 1983 and August 18, 1984
By Niel Victor Rabaya

Facts:

Records show that on March 20, 1980, private respondent PLDT filed an
application with NTC for the approval of a “revised schedule” for its Subscriber Investment
Plan (SIP), docketed as Case No. 82-27.

On April 14, 1982, the NTC issued an ex-parte order provisionally approving the
revised schedule which, however, was set aside by this Court on August 31, 1982.

The Court therein ruled that "there was necessity of a hearing by the Commission
before it should have acted on the application of the PLDT so that the public could air its
opposition, particularly the herein petitioner and the Solicitor General, representing the
government.

On November 22, 1982, the NTC rendered the questioned decision permanently
approving PLDT's new and increased SIP rates.

It is the submission of petitioner that the SIP schedule presented by the PLDT is
pre-mature and, therefore, illegal and baseless, because the NTC has not yet
promulgated the required rules and regulations implementing Section 2 of Presidential
Decree No. 217.

Issue:

WON the NTC must first promulgate the rules and regulations mentioned in the
decree before it can approve the SIP of privated respondent PLDT.

Held: YES

The decision, without any dissenting opinion, sustained the petitioner’s contention
that it is the duty of NTC to first Promulgate rules and regulations.
 The resolution, which is not unanimous, does not subscribe to the view that the
NTC should or must promulgate rules and reegulations because, it is said, the decree
must be given its ordinary meaning; the words used is the permissive “may” and not the
mandatory “shall”.

The non-unanimous resolutions thus relies on the canons index animi sermos
est (speech is the indication of intent) and a verba legis non est recendum (from the
words of the statute there should be no departure).

Any lawyer of modest sophistication knows that canons of statutory construction

march in paris of opposite. Thus with the canons above mentioned we have the following
opposite: verba intentioni, non e contra, debent inservire (words ought to be more
subservient to the intent and not the intent to the words).

It is an elementary rule in statutory construction that the word “may” in a statute is

permissive while the word “shall” is mandatory. The rule, however, is not absolute.

The literal interpretation of the words of an act should not prevail if it creates a
result contrary to the apparent intention of the legislature and if the words are sufficiently
flexible to admit of a construction which will effectuate (put into force or operation) the
legislative intention.

In the case at bar, compelling reasons dictate that the provision of the decree
should be construed as mandatory rather than merely directory.

There is no justification for the rate increase of the revised schedule of PLDT’s
SIP. It is untimely, considering the present economic condition obtaining in the country.
The approved rate defeats the purpose of the decree which is to spread ownership among
the wide base of investors.

Wherefore:

Accordingly, the decions of the public respondent NTC, dated November

22, 1982, and teh ORDER dated January 14, 1983 are hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE.