SC bound to deny ABS-CBN petition
WHAT is worse? Worse is when nonlawyers, laymen and celebrities flaunt their opinions and views on a legal matter at hand. What is the worst? The worst is when law-challenged lawmakers, a former Cabinet secretary and even lawyers insist on broadcasting their opinions on a case of which they do not know the ultimate facts and applicable rules.
The outcome of any case pending in court depends on the facts, circumstances, evidence on hand and applicable rules, laws and jurisprudence. Without these factors, one cannot simply make a pre-judgment.
On May 7, ABS- CBN Corp. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court. It was docketed as GR 252119, ABS-CBN Corp. v.National Telecommunications Commission, and which “seeks to nullify and set aside the 5 May 2020 order of the National Telecommunications Commission ( NTC) in NTC Adm. Case No. 2020- 08.”
The petition was filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court. At this point alone, I believe that Rule 65 is not the proper legal remedy and the Supreme Court may deny due course to the petition. Let me expound on this.
Rules of practice of NTC
Before filing the petition before the Supreme Court, ABS-CBN’s counsel should have studied the 2006 Rules of Practice and Procedure of the NTC (NTC Rules). This same thing goes for law-challenged lawmakers.
Rule 10 provides that the “Commission may file or initiate a complaint” and “pending hearing and final consideration of the case, the Commission may … issue a cease and desist order to a respondent.”
Was ABS- CBN deprived of due process when the NTC issued the cease and desist order ( CDO) on May 5? The answer is in the negative – the NTC Rules mandate that the NTC may issue a cease- and- desist order to a respondent pending hearing and final consideration of the case. This is clear in the NTC Rules.
Can ABS- CBN directly go to the Supreme Court to appeal NTC’s order? The answer is in the negative.
Under NTC Rule 13 a “party adversely affected by a decision, order or resolution, may within fifteen ( 15) days from receipt of a copy thereof, file a motion for reconsideration.” ABS- CBN received a copy of the CDO on May 5. Thus, they have until May 20 to file their motion for reconsideration of the CDO. However, they opted to file a petition before the Supreme Court, which is a violation of Rule 13 and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
The Supreme Court can deny any petition if the exhaustion of administrative remedies was not complied with.
ABS- CBN’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration is tantamount to nonexhaustion of administrative remedies.
Jurisprudence settled the rule that if a remedy is very much available within the administrative machinery of the administrative agency, then this alternative should first be utilized before resort can be made to the courts, not only to give the administrative agency the opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly, but also to avoid the very pernicious evil the doctrine itself seeks to prevent — the unnecessary and premature resort to courts and the clogging of its dockets.
Court of Appeals the proper court
The NTC is a quasi- judicial body and any appeal of its decision, order or resolution should be elevated to the Court of Appeals and not the Supreme Court. This is very evident in the wording of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court, as amended.
Rule 43 pertains to the appeals from quasi- judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals. It listed specific quasi- judicial agencies, among which is the NTC. Section 1 of Rule 43 reads as follows:
“This rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi- judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi- judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.”
Posing the same question, can ABSCBN go directly to the Supreme Court in assailing the CDO rendered by the NTC, which is a quasi- judicial body? Again, the answer is in the negative.
The Supreme Court can deny to give due course to the petition if the petitioner violated the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. Following Rule 43, ABS- CBN should have filed it before the Court of Appeals and not with the Supreme Court.
Rule 65 not the proper remedy
The filing of a petition, whether it is for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, under Rule 65 can be allowed “when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
The operative word in the text of the law is “and.” Assuming that NTC acted with grave abuse of discretion, this must be coupled with “no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.”
Is there no more appeal available in the ordinary course of law? Appeal is still available by way of filing a motion for reconsideration (under NTC Rule 13), within a period of 15 days, or specifically until May 20. When ABS-CBN filed the petition on May 7, there is still an appeal which they could have resorted to until May 20.
Assuming that a motion for reconsideration can be dispensed with (as held in a line of jurisprudence), is there an “appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law?” The answer would be yes. They could elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals (as required by Rule 43), but not directly to the Supreme Court. The same Rule 43 directs that “the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution.”
In my opinion and legal analysis, the Supreme Court is bound to deny due course to the petition filed by ABS-CBN due to their non- exhaustion of administrative remedies and for their failure to observe the hierarchy of courts. Finally, and undeniably, Rule 65 is the wrong remedy.
The extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not an alternative to an available remedy in the ordinary course of law is clear from Section 1 of Rule 65, which requires that there must be no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. ABS- CBN’s counsel seemingly failed in this aspect.