March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012]
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.
G.R. No. 189875 (National Telecommunications Commission v. Trans Digital Excel, Inc.).- Before us is a Rule 45 petition, which seeks the review and reversal of these two Orders issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Manila, Branch 24 in the course of the rehabilitation proceedings in Civil Case No. 05-114076: (1) the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Order, both dated 19 June 2009, enjoining petitioner National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) from reallocating the 1710-1720/1805-1815 MHz band from Wireless Local Loop (WWL) to Broadband Wireless Access (BWA) services, pursuant to a proposed memorandum circular during the period of the corporate rehabilitation of Express Telecommunication Company, Inc. (Extelcom); and (2) the Joint Order dated 22 September 2009 denying NTC's Motion for Reconsideration of the 19 June 2009 Order.
Respondent Trans Digital Excel, Inc. (Trans Digital) initiated Civil Case No. 05-114076 at the RTC Manila, Branch 24, for the corporate rehabilitation of respondent's debtor, Extelcom. On 21 June 2006, the RTC approved the rehabilitation plan for Extelcom as recommended by the rehabilitation receiver. The trial court also ordered NTC to refrain from reallocating to others, during the entire period of rehabilitation, frequencies 1720-1725/1815-1825 MHz. Under the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Provisional Authority of Extelcom, these frequencies had been provisionally assigned to it as GSM[1] frequencies for use in its Cellular Mobile Telecommunications System (CMTS) network.
While Extelcom�s rehabilitation was ongoing, in January 2009, NTC posted on its website a Notice of Public Hearing inviting comments from all affected and interested parties regarding a proposed memorandum circular (MC) captioned "Reallocation of Wireless Local Loop Frequency Bands to Broadband Wireless Access."[2] The MC sought the reallocation of the frequency band 1710-1720/1805-1815 MHz from WLL to BWA services. NTC conducted a public hearing thereon on 27 January 2009.
On 11 February 2009, Trans Digital filed with NTC a Comment arguing against the approval of the proposed MC. Later, on 23 April 2009, Trans Digital filed with the rehabilitation court a Motion[3] for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction against NTC's draft MC. It cited technical studies indicating that the proposed re-allocation of frequency band 1710-1720/1805-1815 MHz to BWA services would certainly interfere with the adjacent 1720-1725/1815-1825 MHz band assigned to Extelcom and effectively prevent the re-launch of services under Extelcom�s rehabilitation plan. NTC opposed[4] the Motion, alleging that Trans Digital could not claim judicial relief in this case, because the matter was not yet ripe for determination, as the subject MC was a mere draft that had not yet been finalized; much less, promulgated.
On 26 May 2009, after conducting a hearing thereon, the RTC issued an Order[5] granting Trans Digital's application for TRO effective for twenty (20) days. NTC filed a Motion for Reconsideration, praying for the lifting of the TRO and the denial of Trans Digital's prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
In its Order dated 19 June 2009,[6] the RTC issued the writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining the NTC from reallocating the 1710-1720/1805-1815 MHz, band from WLL to BWA services as intended in the NTC's proposed MC.[7] NTC moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied in an Order dated 22 September 2009.[8] Aggrieved, NTC filed the present Rule 45 Petition.
In its 3 February 2010 Resolution,[9] this Court, without necessarily giving due course to the Petition, required respondent Trans Digital to file its Comment. Respondent argued in its Comment that the Petition should be dismissed, because petitioner had resorted to the wrong remedy, as the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was a mere interlocutory order. Meanwhile, only final judgments on the merits are reviewable via a Rule 45 Petition. Further, the RTC did not commit any grave error in issuing the assailed Orders.
On 25 August 2010, respondent filed with this Court a Motion to Dismiss Petition.[10] It manifested that it had earlier filed with the rehabilitation court a Motion[11] seeking the dissolution of the subject Writ of Preliminary Injunction on the ground that respondent had resolved any and all interference issues between the frequency assignment of Extelcom and that of Bell Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., which had been assigned the adjacent 1710-1720 / 1805-1815 MHZ band. Pursuant to this Motion, the RTC issued an Order dated 15 July 2010 dissolving the subject Writ of Preliminary Injunction.[12]
Respondent asserts that the present Petition is rendered moot by this RTC Order. Asked to comment on the Motion to Dismiss, NTC interposes no objection and joins respondent's prayer for the dismissal of the Petition.[13]
Hence, this Court no longer needs to resolve any substantive issue, as the controversy out of which this proceeding arose has been remedied.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the present Petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Global System for Mobile Communications.[2] Rollo, p. 85.
[3] Id. at 69-85.
[4] Id. at 86-92.
[5] Id. at 93-95.
[6] Id. at 41-43. This Order in Civil Case No. 05-114076 was issued by Presiding Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., RTC Manila Branch 24.
[7] Id. at 38-39.
[8] Id. at 48.
[9] Id. at 122.
[10] Id. at 155-158.
[11] Omnibus Motion to Lift the Writ of Preliminary Injunction Dated 19 June 2009 and to Release Cash Bond, id at 160-163.
[12] Id. at 165-166.
[13] Id. at 181-185.