Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    The Batangas City Sangguniang Panlungsod granted petitioner Batangas CATV, Inc. a permit to operate a cable television system in 1986. The resolution allowed petitioner to increase rates subject to Sangguniang approval. In 1993, petitioner increased rates without approval. The court ruled that while local governments can regulate CATV operations under their general welfare powers due to the use of public property, they cannot regulate subscriber rates. The National Telecommunications Commission has sole authority over technical matters like rates based on existing laws and deregulation policies. The resolution requiring Sangguniang approval of rate increases was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    1K views2 pages
    The Batangas City Sangguniang Panlungsod granted petitioner Batangas CATV, Inc. a permit to operate a cable television system in 1986. The resolution allowed petitioner to increase rates subject to Sangguniang approval. In 1993, petitioner increased rates without approval. The court ruled that while local governments can regulate CATV operations under their general welfare powers due to the use of public property, they cannot regulate subscriber rates. The National Telecommunications Commission has sole authority over technical matters like rates based on existing laws and deregulation policies. The resolution requiring Sangguniang approval of rate increases was invalid.

    Original Description:

    Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Batangas City Sangguniang Panlungsod granted petitioner Batangas CATV, Inc. a permit to operate a cable television system in 1986. The resolution allowed petitioner to increase rates subject to Sangguniang approval. In 1993, petitioner increased rates without approval. The court ruled that while local governments can regulate CATV operations under their general welfare powers due to the use of public property, they cannot regulate subscriber rates. The National Telecommunications Commission has sole authority over technical matters like rates based on existing laws and deregulation policies. The resolution requiring Sangguniang approval of rate increases was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Noreenesse Santos
    The Batangas City Sangguniang Panlungsod granted petitioner Batangas CATV, Inc. a permit to operate a cable television system in 1986. The resolution allowed petitioner to increase rates subject to Sangguniang approval. In 1993, petitioner increased rates without approval. The court ruled that while local governments can regulate CATV operations under their general welfare powers due to the use of public property, they cannot regulate subscriber rates. The National Telecommunications Commission has sole authority over technical matters like rates based on existing laws and deregulation policies. The resolution requiring Sangguniang approval of rate increases was invalid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    ADMIN LAW

    Title: Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 138810


    Date: September 29, 2004
    Ponente: Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.
    THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE BATANGAS CITY
    BATANGAS CATV, INC., SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD and BATANGAS CITY
    petitioner MAYOR,
    respondents
    FACTS
     On July 28, 1986, respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted Resolution No. 210 granting petitioner a permit to
    construct, install, and operate a Community Antenna Television (CATV) or Cable Television system in Batangas City.
    Section 8 of the Resolution provides that petitioner is authorized to charge its subscribers the maximum rates specified
    therein, “provided, however, that any increase of rates shall be subject to the approval of the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
     Sometime in November 1993, petitioner increased its subscriber rates from P88.00 to P180.00 per month. As a result,
    respondent Mayor wrote petitioner a letter threatening to cancel its permit unless it secures the approval of
    respondent Sangguniang Panlungsod, pursuant to Resolution No. 210.
     Petitioner then filed with the RTC, Branch 7, Batangas City, a petition for injunction alleging that respondent
    Sangguniang Panlungsod has no authority to regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators because under
    Executive Order No. 205, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) has the sole authority to regulate the
    CATV operation in the Philippines. Also, the LGC extends to LGUs the general power to perform any act that would
    benefit constituents but doesn’t authorize them to regulate CATV operation.
     Respondent argues that the Resolution was enacted pursuant to Sec. 177(c) & (d) of BP 337 (LGC of 1983) which
    authorizes LGUs to regulate businesses and is in the nature of a contract between petitioner and respondent.
    ISSUE/S
    Whether or not a local government unit (LGU) may regulate the subscriber rates charged by CATV operators within its
    territorial jurisdiction? NO
    RATIO
     The resolution is an enactment of an LGU acting only as agent of the national legislature. There is no law authorizing
    LGUs to grant franchises to operate CATV. Whatever authority the LGUs had before, the same had been withdrawn
    when President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1512 terminating all franchises, permits or certificates for the operation of
    CATV system previously granted by local governments. Today, pursuant to Section 3 of E.O. No. 436, only persons,
    associations, partnerships, corporations or cooperatives granted a Provisional Authority or Certificate of Authority by
    the NTC may install, operate and maintain a cable television system or render cable television service within a service
    area. It is clear that in the absence of constitutional or legislative authorization, municipalities have no power to grant
    franchises.
     The logical conclusion, therefore, is that in light of the above laws and E.O. No. 436, the NTC exercises regulatory
    power over CATV operators to the exclusion of other bodies.
     Like any other enterprise, CATV operation maybe regulated by LGUs under the general welfare clause. This is primarily
    because the CATV system commits the indiscretion of crossing public properties. (It uses public properties in order to
    reach subscribers.) The physical realities of constructing CATV system – the use of public streets, rights of ways, the
    founding of structures, and the parceling of large regions – allow an LGU a certain degree of regulation over CATV
    operators.
     But, while we recognize the LGUs’ power under the general welfare clause, we cannot sustain Resolution No. 210. We
    are convinced that respondents strayed from the well recognized limits of its power. The flaws in Resolution No. 210
    are: (1) it violates the mandate of existing laws and (2) it violates the State’s deregulation policy over the CATV industry.
     LGUs must recognize that technical matters concerning CATV operation are within the exclusive regulatory power of
    the NTC.
     Consequently, the protection of the constitutional provision as to impairment of the obligation of a contract does not
    extend to privileges, franchises and grants given by a municipality in excess of its powers, or ultra vires.
    RULING
    WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 12, 1999 as well as
    its Resolution dated May 26, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52461, are hereby REVERSED. The RTC Decision in Civil Case No.
    4254 is AFFIRMED.
    (SANTOS, 2B 2017-2018)

    You might also like