ROSAURO V. SIBAL
Acting Commissioner"
(pp. 3-4, NTC Decision in Administrative Case No. 82-123; p. 52, Rollo)
The instant petition now seeks to declare as null and void the aforesaid NTC decision of August 29, 1986, contending that respondent NTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring PLDT liable for operating radio station without a license and using unauthorized radio frequency, and in directing public respondent Regional Director to confiscate the PLDT equipment used in the aforesaid violations.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad
Petitioner’s contention does not merit our consideration.
The real issue of the case at bar boils down to whether or not petitioner has any cause of action against public respondent NTC. It was the explicit ruling of the appellate court in AC-G.R. No. 01101 which We affirmed and declared final in G.R. No. 67110 that petitioner has no legal interest whatsoever as would entitle him to intervene in NTC Administrative Case No. 82-123, anchored on its finding that petitioner does not hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate a telephone system in Tagbilaran:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"We take note of the fact that in petitioner’s memorandum filed with this Court, he does not deny the claim of respondents that he had not obtained the corresponding certificate of public convenience and public necessity within a period of sixty (60) days from the approval of the congressional franchise on August 4, 1969. By the express provision of Section 8 of said Congressional Franchise of Republic Act No. 6113, said failure resulted in said franchise becoming null and void . . .
Administrative Case No. 82-123 merely relates to violations of PLDT of the provisions of Act No. 38846 in its using an unauthorized frequency and operating a radio station with an expired radio station license. The violations consists of PLDT’s continued use of 70-100 MME, a radio van which, as early as 1976, had been disallowed to be used by telephone and telegraph companies because its use interfered with television viewing. That PLDT had failed to discontinue the use of said frequency is a fact that PLDT cannot deny.
"Considering that the motion for intervention is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court and that where intervenor’s interest can properly be protected in a separate proceeding, we find and so hold that respondent NTC did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to intervene in Administrative Case No. 82-123, especially when it appears that petitioner has not shown that its continued operation of a telephone system in Tagbilaran City and the Province of Bohol is covered by a proper certificate of convenience and public necessity and as a matter of fact, it would appear that it does not have said certificate and its operation, therefore, is actually illegal. The courts cannot step in to abet petitioner’s continued illegal operation for he who comes to court must come with clean hands.
"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, with costs against petitioner." (pp. 2-4, IAC Decision dated November 7, (1983 in AC-G.R. Sp. No. 01101 entitled Rodolfo Boiser, Et. Al. v. NTC, Et. Al. for Certiorari; Emphasis supplied; pp. 53-54, Rollo).
Nowhere in the records of NTC Case No. 82-123 or AC-G.R. No. 01101 or G.R. No. 67110, can We find any matter or solid ground which validly affects him as an interested party and for which he can appropriately be aggrieved thereby.
Petitioner by filing the present petition has sought to revive the same cause which has already been adjudicated with finality by the Intermediate Appellate Court and this Court. We have always frowned on such practice of repeated litigations of identical parties and issues already decided with finality by this Court under the doctrine of res judicata. Furthermore the doctrine of the "Law of the Case" which states that whatever has once been irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court.
Petitioner may argue that whereas he was seeking the nullity of an NTC order denying his intervention in the case while here is seeking the nullity of the decision finding PLDT liable. Petitioner would then be again in error. Settled jurisprudence dictates that the stamp of finality rendered by the doctrine of res judicata does not only include every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim but any other admissible matter which might have been offered in evidence for that purpose and of all matters that could have been adjudicated in that case (Zansibarian Residents Association v. Municipality of Makati, 135 SCRA 235, 1985). Moreover, the bottom line in all these issues raised then and now is the absence of any legal interest on the part of petitioner in the administrative complaint that is addressed solely to the violations of PLDT.
Finally, the other issue of whether or not NTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in its decision holding PLDT liable and ordering confiscation of its equipment, shall be discussed if only to respond to some erroneous and spurious claims of petitioner. PLDT admitted the findings that it did continue to operate its radio station under an expired license and that it used the prohibited frequency even after it was banned. What else was there for NTC to do but hold PLDT liable with penalty and direct the confiscation of PLDT’s equipment used in the violations? It was, in fact, incumbent upon NTC to do so under the law and its rules.chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Furthermore, petitioner’s claim of interest in the administrative case against PLDT is negated by the enumeration of facts supported by documentary evidence submitted in G.R. No. 67110 before this Court, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"(1) The municipal franchise granted to petitioner on February 2, 1961 to install and operate a telephone system in Tagbilaran, which was to serve as basis for his application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity before the then Public Service Commission (PSC), was withdrawn by the Tagbilaran Municipal Council after six (6) months.
"(2) Petitioner’s application before the PSC for the approval of his franchise and the issuance of the certificate of public convenience and necessity was dismissed by the PSC on October 4, 1961.
"(3) Petitioner’s petition dated October 16, 1961 before the PSC for a second order of hearing failed to disclose that his municipal franchise had been withdrawn;
"(4) The provisional authority granted on April 15, 1964 by the PSC for petitioner to operate a telephone system was good only for six months and the same expired without any extension;
"(5) The PSC dismissed on September 1, 1965 petitioner’s application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity;
"(6) The congressional franchise of August 4, 1969 under R.A. 6113 granted to petitioner was conditioned upon his securing a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which he failed when the PSC denied his application therefor." (pp. 61-62, Rollo)
The foregoing enumerations are a reiteration of the facts made by public respondent and substantiated by documentary evidence submitted in G.R. No. 67110 before this Court. These facts negate petitioner’s claim of any legal interest that may be prejudiced by the finding of violations against PLDT. Petitioner’s illegal operation of a telephone system for more than seventeen (17) years now cannot and will never become a basis to intervene in the case, much less, to seek the nullity of any order or decision therein.
Likewise, petitioner’s full ventilation of his cause before the IAC in AC-G.R. No. 01101 wherein oral and documentary evidence were adduced, and before this Court in G.R. No. 671101, nullifies his deceptive insistence of lack of due process.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
* Penned by Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., concurred in by Justices Claudio Teehankee, Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, Efren I. Plana, Conrado M. Vasquez and Lorenzo Relova.