ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 152534.
DIGITEL vs. PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 152534 (Digital Telecommunications Phils., Inc. (DIGITEL) vs. Province of Pangasinan represented by its Provincial Treasurer, Ramon A. Crisostomo.)
This resolves the Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner which seeks to reverse and set aside the Resolution of 3 July 2002 denying with finality the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 17 April 2002 which denied its Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on Certiorari for failure of petitioner to show that it has not lost the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period within which to appeal and to submit a valid affidavit of service of the motion on respondent and the Court of Appeals, and the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of 3 July 2002 insofar as it denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari for late filing, and for failure of petitioner to submit an affidavit of service of the petition on respondent and the Regional Trial Court and to state the material date of filing of the motion for reconsideration of the questioned decision. Also for consideration is the Motion to Remand the Records of the Case to the Court of Origin filed by respondent Province of Pangasinan.
The instant case sprang from the complaint for mandamus, collection of sum of money and damages filed by respondent Province of Pangasinan before the Regional Trial Court against petitioner Digital Communications (DIGITEL) alleging that, upon DIGITEL's application, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan passed Provincial Ordinance No. 18-92 granting a Provincial Franchise to DIGITEL to install, maintain and operate a telephone system in the entire Province of Pangasinan and for other purposes; but, from the time DIGITEL started its operation in 1993 up to the present, DIGITEL has not paid the franchise tax as well as the realty taxes due respondent Province.
In its answer, petitioner DIGITEL argued that the passage of its legislative franchise on 26 July 1993 granting it authority to install, operate, and maintain telecommunications systems throughout the Philippines (R.A. 7678) has rendered without force and effect the provincial franchise issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pangasinan on 12 November 1992 (Provincial Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1992). It further argued that it enjoys an exemption from local taxes by virtue of the "in lieu of all taxes" provision in its legislative franchise.
The court a quo in its Decision of
On
On
In the instant motions, petitioner reasons that the Court can relax the stringent application of the technical rules of procedure when to do so would serve the demands of substantial justice and in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction as it should in this case. Petitioner points out that the lack of statement of material dates of receipt of the assailed judgment of the Court of Appeals and the Motion for Reconsideration thereof could be explained by the direct filing of the petition for review on certiorari before this Court without appealing it before the Court of Appeals as it involved purely questions of law. Petitioner clarifies that it filed a motion for reconsideration of the lower court's Resolution and the date of its filing was indicated in par. 1 of its Motion for Extension to file petition for review. With regard to the defective affidavit of service, petitioner explains that the Motion for Extension was mailed/posted a day after the affidavit of service was notarized due to inadvertence since it failed to reach the post office on the date the affidavit was notarized and mailed, forgetting that the affidavit contained the prior date. Petitioner avers that giving due course to the present petition would put an end to pending legal controversies and prevent future litigations involving the very same issues raised in this petition which in the process will help unclog court dockets.
Indeed, the petition for review on certiorari was directly filed
before this Court as the controversy involves a pure question of law, i.e.,
whether a telecommunications company is liable to pay franchise tax and realty
taxes imposed by the provincial government where it has been granted an
exemption therefrom in its legislative franchise, and hence there was valid reason
for the lack of statement of the dates of receipt of the assailed judgment of
the Court of Appeals and of filing of the motion for reconsideration. In lieu
thereof, petitioner in its Motion for Extension states that the lower
court rendered its judgment in Civil Case No. 18037, subject of the Motion
for Reconsideration thereof on
As for the defective affidavit of service, the Court could only take counsel's word that it was a mere oversight and not a device to defeat and go around the procedural rules as errant legal practitioners are wont to do. The unusually heavy traffic and the premature closing of the postal service for cost-cutting measures, however true within our social climate, are not considered valid grounds for the allowance of a defective pleading. Lawyers have a duty to perform their responsibilities with utmost diligence and competence, especially on matters involving procedural rules given the profusion of cases that have been thrown out on technical grounds. In view of the burden placed upon them, lawyers should develop a keen eye and a sensitive perception to the unexpected so that they can prepare and give allowances for it and not sacrifice the cases of their clients for the usual and unacceptable reason of "inadvertence."
Nevertheless, the issue herein involves the liability of a telecommunications firm to pay franchise taxes as imposed by the provincial government where it has been exempted from payment thereof in its legislative franchise. Stated differently, between a legislative and a provincial franchise, which shall prevail? Clearly, this is a significant and controversial question that merits the Court's attention as it affects the vital industry of telecommunications. A resolution of this issue will not only enrich our jurisprudence but will aid the growth of a stable economy where industries can thrive without being beset by hordes of legal problems.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Leave to Admit Second Motion
for Reconsideration as well as the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by petitioner Digital Communications is GRANTED. The 17 April 2002 Resolution
denying petitioner's Motion for Extension, as well as the 3 July 2002 Resolution
denying reconsideration thereof, and its Petition for Review on Certiorari are
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE and respondent
Province of Pangasinan represented by its Provincial Treasurer Ramon A.
Crisostomo is directed to file its Comment to the Petition within
ten (10) days from notice hereof. Accordingly, the Motion to Remand the
Records of the Case to the Court of Origin dated
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)TOMASITA B.
MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Decision penned by Judge Salvador P. Vedana.
[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 3.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
