1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; MANDAMUS; REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE THEREOF. — It is essential, for a writ of mandamus to issue, that the plaintiff has a legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the defendant to perform the act required (Gonzales v. Board of Pharmacy, 20 Phil. 367,375). The legal right of the plaintiff to the thing demanded must be well-defined, clear and certain (Villamor, Et. Al. v. Lacson, Et Al., L-15845, Nov. 28, 1964). The corresponding duty of the defendant to perform the required act must also be clear and specific (Llanto v. Mohammad Ali Dimaporo, Et Al., L-21905, March 31, 1966). Mandamus will not issue in doubtful cases, as it simply commands the exercise of a power already possessed or to perform a duty already imposed (Alzate, etc. v. Aldana, etc., Et Al., L-18085, May 31, 1963). Mandamus will lie to compel action, or to remedy official inaction (Gonzales v. Board of Pharmacy, supra; Guanio v. Fernandez, 55 Phil. 814, 821; Sanson v. Barrios, 63 Phil. 198, 204; Hipolito v. The City of Manila, Et Al., 87 Phil. 180; Gocheco Brothers, Inc. v. Yno, Et Al., L-5999, March 20, 1954; Alzate v. Aldana, etc., Et Al., supra; Bernabe v. Bolinao, Et Al., L-22000, Nov. 29, 1966).

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN CASE AT BAR, PROPER. — In the case at bar, the respondents Secretary and Chief of the Radio Control Office patently neglected the discharge of the duty, under Section 3(1) of the Radio Control Law to "approve or disapprove" the petitioner’s applications for renewal of the radio license. On April 12, 1961 the latter filed the first application for renewal of license 5931, and paid the corresponding license fee of P50. The Radio Control Office which is directly under the "supervision and control" of the Public Works Secretary took no action on this application. On May 31, 1962 the petitioner filed another application for renewal of his radio license and paid the corresponding renewal license fee. No action was likewise taken on this one. And despite the continued operation of the radio station since May 23, 1961, the date license 5931 expired, there was not interference whatsoever from the office of the respondent Secretary and the Radio Control Office. In point of fact, such continued operation was officially tolerated, as can be gleaned from the letter dated December 7, 1962 sent by the Chief of the Radio Control Office to the petitioner, at the behest of the respondent Secretary, requesting the licensee "to feature the many newly recorded Philippine Christmas songs," as a special public feature in the radio programs of station DZQR.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; RADIO CONTROL LAW: DISAPPROVAL OF PETITIONER’S LICENSE AND SEIZURE OF RADIO TRANSMITTER WITHOUT HEARING, A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. — No validity can be accorded to the respondents’ assertion that, in seizing the transmitter, the respondent Secretary was merely exercising his confiscatory power under Section 3(m) of the Radio Control Law. This Court in no uncertain terms declared in its resolution of February 28, 1963 that the seizure, though made under authority of a search warrant, cannot obliterate the fact that such seizure violated Section 3(1), supra, which provides that "no application for renewal shall be disapproved without giving the licensee a hearing" and Section 17 of Department Order 11 which provides that no "radio station license may be revoked for willful violations of the radio laws and regulations, local or international . . . without giving the licensee a hearing" ; that the application for issuance of the search warrant and the ultimate seizure of the radio transmitter in effect amounted to an attempt to evade the requirement of such hearing; and that the seizure effected made it impossible for the radio station to continue operating. The requirement of a hearing as provided by the Radio Control Law and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, is founded on the fundamental principle that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. A franchise, like the one granted by R.A. 1553 to the petitioner, is property entitled to constitutional protection (2 Tañada & Carreon, Political Law of the Philippines, 1962 ed., p. 30, citing Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197; Campbell v. Holt, 115 U.S. 620). A "radio license is an operating authority of importance involving primarily the interest of the public" (Ranger v. Federal Commun. Com. [1961], 42 PUR 3d, 297 F2d 782), and "valuable rights and investments made in reliance on a license . . . should not be destroyed . . . except for the most compelling reasons" (Churchill Tabernacle v. Federal Commun. Com. [1947], 69 PUR NS 185, 81 US App DC 411, 160 F2d 255).

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPEAL NOT AN ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE CASE AT BAR. — There is no statute providing for an appeal from an action taken by the Radio Control Office to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. And if an appeal there be to the respondent Secretary. by virtue of the latter’s power of "general supervision and control" over the Radio Control Office (Sec. 8, Act 3846, as amended), this remedy is not such "adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" as would bar the present action for mandamus, for the acts committed by the respondents are "patently illegal" (Gonzales v. Hechanova, etc., Et Al., L-21897, Oct. 22, 1963, and cases cited therein; Abaya v. Villegas, Et Al., L-25641, Dec. 17, 1966), having been performed in violation of the Radio Control Law and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and the immediate return of the transmitter demanded "urgency of judicial intervention" (Gonzales v. Hechanova, etc., Et Al., supra) as its seizure completely immobilized the radio station DZQR and prevented the petitioner from complying with his contractual commitments.

Republic Act 1553, approved on June 16, 1956, authorized the petitioner Eliseo B. Lemi to construct, maintain and operate radio broasting and television stations. On June 8, 1960 the Radio Control Office of the Department of Public Works and Communications issued to him license 5931 to construct, maintain and operate radio station DZQR. This license was effective for one year, that is, from May 24, 1960 to May 23, 1961.

On April 12, 1961, Lemi applied for renewal of the license to cover the period from May 24, 1961 to May 23, 1962, and paid the corresponding renewal license fee of P50. The Radio Control Office took no action on this renewal application. On May 31, 1962, he again applied for renewal of the license, to cover the period from May 24, 1962 to May 23, 1963, and again paid the corresponding renewal license fee. Again the Radio Control Office took no action thereon. He continued operating the radio station without any interference whatsoever from the office of the Public Works Secretary and the Radio Control Office. As a matter of fact, a letter dated December 7, 1962 of the chief of the latter office requested the licensee "to feature the many newly recorded Philippine Christmas songs."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the morning of January 11, 1963, while the radio station DZQR was broasting, Alfredo M. Cargo, an agent of the Public Works Secretary, and Heraclio San Juan, a radio regulation inspector of the Radio Control Office, accompanied by agents of the Presidential Anti- Graft Committee (PAGCOM), armed with a search warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, searched the radio station and thereafter seized and carried away a radio transmitter which was being used at the time, on the pretext that it "was without any name plate or serial number and is entirely different from the authorized transmitter," in gross violation of the Radio Control Law. On January 19, 1963, Lemi instituted the present original petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction, against Public Works Secretary Brigido Valencia, Chief Roberto San Andres of the Radio Control Office, Alfredo M. Cargo, Heraclio San Juan, Chairman Conrado Cajator of the PAGCOM and the latter’s agents, praying that this Court (1) issue a preliminary mandatory injunction directing the respondents to return immediately the radio transmitter to him, and, after due hearing on the merits, to make the writ permanent; and (2) order the respondents to issue without delay the renewal license applied for by him.

The petitioner averred that the summary and unwarranted seizure of the transmitter "was a wanton and deliberate disregard" of the pertinent provisions of the Radio Control Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder providing for "due formal hearing before a seizure or closure" ; that the search warrant was procured "by means of misrepresentation and deceit" on the part of the respondents’ agents, who made it appear "that a criminal charge or some sort of charge had been previously filed against the petitioner when . . .no such charge is known to petitioner up to this time" ; that the transmitter "was never illegally used as it was (used) with full knowledge and approval and consent of the respondents themselves" ; that the said transmitter was not capable of transmitting messages abroad; that being "attached to the radio station permanently as an indispensable structure thereof without which broast could not have been possible," the transmitter is "real property" and "not subject of seizure warrant" ; that the seizure thereof was "actually inspired by vindictiveness and ill-will arising from the criticisms aired by a paying commentator . . . R.T. Jocson, in his daily radio program, `So the People May Know’, of the abuses of the Chief of the Radio Control Office and the present administration . . . further aggravated by the refusal of petitioner to accede to the repeated requests of respondent Roberto San Andres to refrain from testifying in the administratives charges . . . which . . . R.T. Jocson .. previously filed against respondent Roberto San Andres, and to bar the said commentator from the air" ; and that the continued deprivation of the use of the transmitter during the pendency of the petition would work great injustice and irreparable damage and injury to him because he would then be prevented from fulfilling his contractual commitments with his numerous clientele.

The petitioner further averred that sometime after November 3, 1961, after he had filed the first application for renewal of the radio station license, Eliodoro B. Jose, chief radio inspector of the Radio Control Office, inspected the station and found the equipment and installations therein "in order and in compliance with the pertinent requirements of radio regulations, [and] recommended the issuance of a radio station license" ; and that in spite of such recommendation, the respondents Public Works Secretary and Chief of the Radio Control Office, "with the evident purpose of prejudicing the operations of the herein petitioner, unlawfully neglected the performance of their duties by maliciously withholding the license for station DZQR already paid by the petitioner, although the law specifically enjoins issuance thereof as a ministerial duty after petitioner had complied with the requirements of the law and regulations." We gave due course to the petition and ordered the respondents to submit their answer and show cause why a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction should not be issued.

In their answer to the petition, the respondents claimed that the radio transmitter was seized "by virtue of a valid search warrant after it was clearly established .. that the transmitter .. was illegally constructed and installed without any previous permit" ; that the seized transmitter "is powerful enough to transmit messages abroad" ; that no misrepresentation was committed in securing the search warrant as "a criminal charge has already been filed against the petitioner with the Office of the City Fiscal for violation of Radio Station and Communications Law, docketed as I.S. No. 1689 and scheduled for hearing .. on January 31, 1963; and that the transmitter subject to seizure as it is movable property."cralaw virtua1aw library

The respondents further averred that although license 5931 expired on May 23, 1961, the renewal application was filed only on May 15, 1962, in violation of Section 2 of Act 3846, as amended which provides that applications for renewal of radio licenses should be filed at least two months before the expiry dates of the licenses sought to be renewed; that mere payment of the corresponding renewal license fee does not in itself constitute a renewal of the radio station license; that the renewal license was withheld because the petitioner was using a transmitter "without any name plate or serial number," different from the one authorized by the Radio Control Office which initially was an "UNELMANCO-BCT 500 S/N RCD-0503" and later authorized to be substituted by a "COLLINS T.M. 400 S/N RCD-0637" ; that the use of an unauthorized transmitter is in gross violation of Section l-A of Act 3846, as amended; that the issuance of a license to operate a radio station involves the exercise of judgment and discretion; and that the only specific legal duty of the respondent Public Works Secretary is to hold a hearing in case he disapproves a license, pursuant to Section 3(1) of Act 3846, as amended.

The respondents further maintained that the petitioner not having exhausted other available remedies in the ordinary course of law, namely, (1) a court action to quash the search warrant, and (2) an appeal to the respondent Secretary, the petition is prematurely filed.

The petitioner’s rejoinder recited that when he filed the first application for renewal on April 12, 1961, the period fixed in license 5931 (May 23, 1961) had not yet expired; that it has been a long established and existing practice that once the renewal license fee is accepted, the acceptance is equivalent to a permit to continue operating during the pendency of the issuance of the renewal license until the disapproval of the application for renewal, which may take effect only after due notice and hearing; that if the transmitter "has no visible name plate, it was because the same was repainted to conform with good engineering practice, it being a secondhand surplus equipment" ; that the search warrant is null and void ab initio, the respondents having admitted "the absence of any formal information against the petitioner before the filing of an application for a search warrant with the Court of First Instance of Manila" ;1 that the respondents’ "refusal to renew .. license for an unreasonable length of time is equivalent to a disapproval of the application itself and/or revocation of the old license without due notice and hearing," in violation of Section 3(1), supra, and Section 17 of Department Order 11, series of 1950; that a petition for mandamus can be availed of even without exhausting available administrative remedies; and that in matters of this nature, this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with courts of first instance, pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 67 of the new Rules of Court.

Acting on the manifestation filed by the petitioner on February 20, 1963, we issued a resolution on the following February 23, commanding the respondents to return the radio transmitter, upon the filing of a bond of P1,000.

Is the petitioner entitled to the reliefs prayed for?

Section 3 of Rule 65 of the new Rules of Court authorizes the issuance of a writ of mandamus when "any .. person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." It is essential, therefore, for a writ of mandamus to issue, that the plaintiff has a legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the imperative duty of the defendant to perform the act required. 2 The legal right of the plaintiff to the thing demanded must be well-defined, clear and certain. 3 The corresponding duty of the defendant to perform the required act must also be clear and specific. 4 Mandamus will not issue in doubtful cases, as it simply commands the exercise of a power already possessed or to perform a duty already imposed.5 Mandamus will lie to compel action, or to remedy official inaction. 6

Under Section 3 of the Radio Control Law, 7 the Public Works Secretary 8 is empowered to regulate the establishment, use and operation of all radio stations and of all forms of radio communication and transmission within the Philippines, and to issue such rules ad regulations as may be necessary for the proper implementation of the law. 9 In addition,

"(k) He is hereby empowered to approve or to disapprove any application for the construction, installation, establishment or operation of a radio station;

"(l) He may approve or disapprove any application for renewal of station or operator license: provided