BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS INC. (Formerly International Communications Corporation), Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondents.
Facts:
The
case stemmed from the petition for declaratory relief filed before the RTC of
Pasig City, by petitioner Bayan Telecommunications Inc., against respondents
Republic of the Philippines and National Telecommunications Commission (NTC).
Petitioner specifically sought the suspension of the requirement, under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 7925, of a public offering of 30% of the aggregate
common stocks of telecommunication entities with regulated types of services
within five years from the effectivity of the Act or the entity’s first start
of commercial operations, whichever comes later. Petitioner claimed that it was
impossible for it to make a bona fide public offering at that
time because its financial condition, the Philippine economy, and the stock
market were not conducive for a successful public offering. It also claimed
that impossibility of performance was an implied exception to the above cited
provision of Rep. Act No. 7925.
The Solicitor General moved for the
dismissal of the petition for failure to state a cause of action. The Solicitor
General maintained that the provisions of Section 21 of Rep. Act No. 7925
are clear and free of any ambiguity, and that petitioner failed to exhaust
administrative remedies as it did not first ask for an exemption from the
application of said provision.
On
October 12, 2000, the trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a
cause of action, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
Whether
there is ambiguity in the cited provision of Section 21, Rep. Act No. 7925
which justifies an action for declaratory relief. And, also whether there is a
justiciable controversy ripe for judicial determination.
Ruling:
For
such an action for declaratory relief before a trial court to prosper, it must
be shown that (a) there is a justiciable controversy, (b) the controversy is
between persons whose interests are adverse, (c) the party seeking the relief
has a legal interest in the controversy, and (d) the issue invoked is ripe for
judicial determination. Respondents contest the presence of the first and last
requisites insofar as petitioner’s case is concerned.
A justiciable
controversy is a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations
of parties having adverse legal interests, which may be resolved by a court of
law through the application of a law. In the case at bar, petitioner fears
the risk of possible sanctions. However, a mere apprehension of an
administrative sanction does not give rise to a justiciable controversy. Rep.
Act No. 7925 does not provide for a penalty for noncompliance with Section 21,
and as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there are yet no
implementing rules or guidelines to carry into effect the requirement imposed
by the said provision. Whatever sanctions petitioner fears are merely
hypothetical.
An issue is ripe
for judicial determination when litigation is inevitable, or when
administrative remedies have been exhausted. There is no showing of either in
the present case. Instead, petitioner asserts that this case falls within the
exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies, specifically
when there is no administrative review provided by law or when the questions
involved are essentially judicial. Petitioner should have first raised its
concerns with the NTC, the agency authorized to implement Rep. Act No. 7925.
Only after a categorical denial of its claim of exemption from or deferment of
compliance with Section 21 can petitioner proceed to court. Thus, petitioner
has no cause of action.
Considering
that the requirements of an action for declaratory relief have not been met,
the trial court properly dismissed the case for lack of cause of action. The
appellate court did not err in affirming said dismissal.
No comments:
Post a Comment