Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > December 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13695 December 29, 1960 - RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

110 Phil 420:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13695. December 29, 1960.]

RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., plaintiff and appellant, v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY and HON. FLORENCIO MORENO, in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Communications, defendants and appellees.

Ross, Selph & Carrascoso for Appellant.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Camilo D. Quiason for appellee Secretary of Public Works and Communications.

Pelaez & Jalandoni for appellee PLDT.


SYLLABUS


1. ACTIONS; PENDENCY OF ANOTHER ACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES; CASE AT BAR. — The real issue between the parties in the prohibition case and the present action for injunction is the same; whether or not the Secretary of Public Works and Communications has the power or jurisdiction to authorize PLDTCO to construct and operate a radio station for overseas telephone services, it being alleged by RCA that such authority or jurisdiction is vested in the President of the Philippines and in the Public Service commission. The fact that the prohibition case was instituted before the construction permit was granted, while the case at bar was filed after such permit had been granted, is of no legal consequence. The essential cause of action in both cases is the same and the decision in the prohibition case will necessarily dispose of the issues in the present complaint and conclude the controversy between the parties.

2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF VARYING THE FORM OF ACTION. — A party cannot, by varying the form of action, or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. (Francisco v. Blas, Et Al., 93 Phil., 1; Wenzel, etc., Et. Al. v. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co. Inc., Et Al., 108 Phil., 530; 57 Off. Gaz., [39] 6958; Evangelista v. Court of Agrarian Relations of Iloilo, Et Al., 109 Phil., 961; 60 off. Gaz., [48] 7932.)

3. ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES; WHEN HEARING NECESSARY; HEARING NOT REQUIRED IN APPLICATION FOR INSTALLATION, ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION OF A RADIO STATION. — In administrative proceedings, hearing is only necessary in those cases where the statute so requires. No hearing is required in the consideration by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications of any application for the installation, establishment or operation of a radio station.


D E C I S I O N


GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:


Appellant RCA Communications, Inc., a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in the Philippines (hereinafter referred to as RCA), is the grantee by assignment of a legislative franchise to operate wireless communication stations between the Philippines and foreign countries. The Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, one herein appellees (hereafter referred to as PLDTCO), is a domestic corporation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines, which was granted a legislative franchise under Act No. 3436 to maintain and operate telephone systems in specified routes in the Philippines (sec. 1) and radio-telephonic communications between those routes as well as between the Islands and telephone systems of other countries (sec. 2).

On March 20, 1993, PLDTCO entered into an agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, wherein both companies agreed to establish telephone services between the Philippines and the United States. As it lacked the necessary equipment and facilities, PLDTCO on the same date entered into another agreement with RCA whereby the latter constituted itself a carrier of PLDTCO’s telephone messages to and from the United States. For the use of its radio transmitters and receivers as such carrier, RCA, under the agreement, received a share of 75% (later reduce to 50%) of the tolls accruing to PLDTCO. The term of the agreement was for five years and "shall thereafter continue in force until terminated by either party giving the other 24 calendar months previous notice in writing."cralaw virtua1aw library

On January 3, 1956, PLDTCO sent RCA a notice of termination of its arrangements with the latter, the same to be effective not later than February 2, 1958, and three months later, filed an application with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, through the Radio Control Board, for authority to construct and operate a radio- telephonic station of its own at Marilao, Bulacan, and for the assignment to it of appropriate radio frequencies. Upon learning of the application, RCA opposed the same on the grounds that the Radio Control Board had no authority to issue the permit applied for before the Public Service Commission has issued the necessary certificate of public necessity and convenience and without the previous approval of the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications as provided in PLDTCO’s franchise.

Not content with said opposition, RCA filed a petition for prohibition (Civil Case NO. 32275) with the Court of First Instance of Manila to prevent the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Radio Control Board from proceeding further on PLDTCO’s pending application. The lower court, however, upon motion of the respondents, dismissed the petition for lack of cause of action and dissolved the writ of preliminary injunction it had previously issued, holding that since under the law the location, installation or operation of any radio-telephonic equipment must be passed upon and considered by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, the said official has the power or jurisdiction to take cognizance of the telephone company’s application. From this order of dismissal, RCA appealed and the case was docketed in this Court as G.R. No. L-12937.

In the meantime, as RCA failed to reinstate the writ of preliminary injunction, the Radio Control Board, upon direction of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, proceeded to consider PLDTCO’s application and on October 31, 1957 issued Construction Permit No. 352, authorizing it to construct and install public trans- oceanic fixed radio stations at Marilao, Bulacan, and allocating to it certain radio frequencies for the operation thereof. Reconsideration of the issuance of the permit having been denied by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, RCA on December 26, 1957, filed the present action in another branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case NO. 34670) praying for injunction to restrain PLDTCO from operating the overseas radio-telephone service which it proposes to operate under Construction Permit No. 352. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the legislative franchise purporting to authorize PLDTCO to operate overseas radio-telephone service was unconstitutional; that for said PLDTCO to be able to operate the proposed service, it was duty bound to secure first a permit from the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, and the necessary authority from the Public Service Commission; and that the approval by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications of the construction permit in favor of PLDTCO without previous hearing and opportunity to plaintiff RCA to present evidence in support of its opposition was without due process of law. PLDTCO opposed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction as prayed for in the complaint, and together with the defendant Secretary of Public Works and Communications, moved for the dismissal of the action on the grounds of pendency of another (the prohibition case) between the same parties for the same cause and of lack of cause of action. Sustaining the motion on both grounds, the trial court in an order dated January 30, 1958 dismissed the case. Reconsideration of the said order having been denied, RCA appealed directly to this Court.

The appeal is without merit.

There is, obviously, not only identity of parties but also identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for between the prohibition case (G.R. No. 12937) and the present action for injunction. The real issue between the parties in both cases is whether or not the Secretary of Public Works and Communications has the power or jurisdiction to authorize PLDTCO to construct and operate a radio station for overseas telephone services, it being alleged by RCA that such authority or jurisdiction is vested in the President of the Philippines and in the Public Service Commission. The fact that the prohibition case was instituted before the construction permit was granted, while the case at bar was filed after such permit had been granted is of no legal consequence. The essential cause of action in both cases is the same and, needless to say, the decision in the prohibition case will necessarily dispose of the issues in the present complaint and conclude the controversy between the parties.

Neither may it validly be argued that there is no identity of relief prayed for since the remedies resorted to in the two cases are different. Well settled is the rule that a party cannot by varying the form of action, or adopting a different method of presenting his case, escape the operation of the principle that one and the same cause of action shall not be twice litigated between the same parties or their privies. (Francisco v. Blas, Et Al., 93 Phil., 1; Wenzel, etc., Et. Al. v. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., Et Al., 108 Phil., 530; 57 Off. Gaz., [39] 6958; Evangelista v. Court of Agrarian Relations of Iloilo, Et Al., 109 Phil., 961; 60 off. Gaz., [48] 7932.)

It is true that in the present case, RCA also claims that the franchise of PLDTCO in section 2 of Act No. 3436 — authorizing it to operate overseas radio-telephonic communication service — is unconstitutional, the same not being included in the title of said Act, and that the grant of the construction permit was in violation of the law on due process since RCA was not given opportunity to be heard in support of its opposition. The issue of the constitutionality of the franchise of PLDTCO to operate overseas radio-telephone service, however, was never raised in the prior prohibition case and is being raised for the first time in the present action for injunction. In this connection, it should be stated that this Court on July 31, 1959 rendered its decision in the prohibition case (G.R. NO. L-12937), dismissing RCA’s appeal and upholding the power or jurisdiction of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications to hear the application as well as the authority of PLDTCO to engage in overseas telephone services under the provisions of its legislative franchise. Pursuant to the principle of res judicata that judgment is conclusive as to future proceedings at law not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter that could have been offered for that purpose. (Roa v. De la Cruz Et. Al., 107 Phil., 8; 60 Off. Gaz., [31] 4624.)

As to the claim that the issuance of the construction permit was without due process, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications not having given RCA the opportunity to present evidence in support of its opposition to PLDTCO’s application, suffice it to say that in administrative proceedings, hearing is only necessary in those cases where the statute so requires. A cursory reading of the Radio Control law (Act No. 3846, as amended) shows that, unlike in other proceedings or instances specified in section 3, paragraphs d and l, of the said law, no hearing is required in the consideration by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications of any application for the installation, establishment, or operation of a radio station (paragraph k). At any rate, even assuming that a hearing is required, RCA must be considered to have waived its right thereto, its counsel having addressed a letter to the Radio Control Board saying that "little would be gained by arguing the matter both before yourselves and before the Public Service Commission."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, we deem it idle to pass upon the other questions raised by the parties.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-14762 December 20, 1960 - UNION DE EMPLEADOS DE TRENES v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR, CO.

    110 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-13007 December 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE CUNANAN

    110 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. L-16283 December 27, 1960 - NEW ANGAT-MANILA TRANSPORTATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-10121 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BERGANIO

    110 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS

    110 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. L-11037 December 29, 1960 - EDGARDO CARIAGA v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY.

    110 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. L-11179 December 29, 1960 - BURGOS T. SAYOC v. ELLEN CHEN

    110 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-11665 December 29, 1960 - ENRIQUE MORALES v. CITY ENGINEER OF THE CITY OF CAVITE

    110 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-12087 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO CAIMBRE

    110 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. L-12450 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO BOLIVAR

    110 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. L-12819 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDRO GUARNES

    110 Phil 379

  • G.R. Nos. L-12860-61 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGMEDIO SANTIAGO

    110 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-13018 December 29, 1960 - ADELA ROSARIO v. MARIA S. F. ROSARIO

    110 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-13075 December 29, 1960 - CO CHIN LENG v. EUGENIO MINTU

    110 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-13083 December 29, 1960 - MANUEL R. OLAÑO v. MANUEL BERNARDO

    110 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-13292 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WENCESLAO PAGULAYAN

    110 Phil 402

  • G.R. No. L-13308 December 29, 1960 - MANUEL PANGAN v. EVENING NEWS PUBLISHING CO.

    110 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-13401 December 29, 1960 - PRUDENTIAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-13695 December 29, 1960 - RCA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO.

    110 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-13746 December 29, 1960 - ISIDRO BOFIL v. CATALINO P. CASIDSID

    110 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-14219 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO G. SISON v. FELICIANO MAZA

    110 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-14245 December 29, 1960 - SOLEDAD ABIJUELA v. HOSPICIA DOLOSA

    110 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-14377 December 29, 1960 - EAST PACIFIC MERCHANDISING CORP. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

    110 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-14623 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKANS ASPALIN

    110 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-14858 December 29, 1960 - MARIANO S. GONZAGA v. AUGUSTO CE DAVID

    110 Phil 460

  • G.R. No. L-14985 December 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO U. BUENASEDA v. BOWEN & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-15100 December 29, 1960 - IN RE: VICENTE TIU NAVARRO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

    110 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-15118 December 29, 1960 - ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. L-15140 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN DEROSARIO

    110 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. L-15154 December 29, 1960 - GIL VILLANUEVA v. FILOMENO GIRGED

    110 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. L-15155 December 29, 1960 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. EXEQUIEL FLORO

    110 Phil 482

  • G.R. Nos. L-15167-68 December 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALIO PANCHO

    110 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-15182 December 29, 1960 - SANTIAGA BLANCO v. FRUCTUOSA ESQUIERDO

    110 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. L-15193 December 29, 1960 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    110 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-15595 December 29, 1960 - MARTIN CAÑADA v. CANDIDO RUBI

    110 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-15654 December 29, 1960 - DELGADO BROTHERS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-15753 December 29, 1960 - JUANA REYES VDA. DE AREJOLA v. CAMARINES SUR REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL

    110 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-15800 December 29, 1960 - C. K. VASWANI v. P. TARACHAND BROS.

    110 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. L-15813 December 29, 1960 - GERMAN DE ORTUBE v. JUSTINIANO T. ASUNCION

    110 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. L-15978 December 29, 1960 - DAVAO GULF LUMBER CORP. v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    110 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-16153 December 29, 1960 - ESTRELLA E. SERRANO v. ANDRES REYES

    110 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. L-16285 December 29, 1960 - JOSE SETON v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    110 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. L-17512 December 29, 1960 - CLARO IBASCO v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO

    110 Phil 553

  • G.R. Nos. L-13012 & L-14876 December 31, 1960 - CITY OF CEBU v. EDMUNDO S. PICCIO

    110 Phil 558

  • G.R. Nos. L-13983-85 December 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PERLITO SOYANG

    110 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. L-14921 December 31, 1960 - DOLORES B. GUICO v. PABLO G. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 584

  • G.R. Nos. L-15024-25 December 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SACAYANAN

    110 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-15560 December 31, 1960 - INTERNATIONAL OIL FACTORY WORKERS UNION v. ARSENIO MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-16035 December 31, 1960 - THERESE VILLANUEVA v. PANTALEON A. PELAYO

    110 Phil 602

  • G.R. No. L-16521 December 31, 1960 - PORFIRIO DIAZ v. EMIGDIO NIETES

    110 Phil 606