CA orders BSP, Diokno, AllCard to comment on suit
BSP, Diokno, AllCard ordered to comment
“YOUR services may be affected by a network interruption in your location and nearby areas. Restoration may take up to 36 hours. We will give you an update via SMS to your registered mobile number. Thank you for your understanding.” This was the message that greeted the internet subscribers of PLDT on the morning of March 14, 2024 in a village down south. I am sure that their projected 36 hours of downtime would be exceeded, as usual.
This is becoming a monthly thing with PLDT — without this giant company deducting the corresponding downtime cost from the monthly bills of their distraught subscribers. On Feb. 13, 2024 (exactly a month before March 14), PLDTHome sent this text message to their subscribers: “There will be a scheduled network upgrade in your area on February 13 from 1:30 a.m. to 5 a.m. You may experience service interruptions during this time. Please restart your modem after the activity. Thanks for understanding.” In actuality, the internet service was restored way beyond the given 5 a.m. time.
A month before that, on Jan. 13, 2024, PLDT sent a series of text messages to its disgusted subscribers. At 6:30 p. m., it sent this: “We’re currently working on a network issue that may affect the landline, internet and Cignal TV services in your area. We expect restoration in 4 hours and will keep you updated. Thank you for your patience!” After four hours, PLDTHome sent this: “Hi! We’re still fixing the issue affecting your service. Estimated restoration is extended by 8 hours. Thanks for understanding!” At 1 p.m. the following day, January 14, PLDTHome had this message delivered to their customers: “Hi! We’re still working on the issue affecting your service. We’ll provide an update as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience!” The downtime took almost 24 hours before it was finally restored.
Isn’t it time the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) look into this unscrupulous practice of PLDT?
The NTC is a government agency under the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) tasked with regulating and supervising the telecommunications industry in the country. It oversees various aspects of the telecommunications sector, including issuing licenses and permits to internet service providers (ISPs), setting standards and regulations for service quality, monitoring compliance with regulatory requirements, and addressing consumer complaints and concerns related to telecommunications services, including internet access. While the DICT does not directly regulate ISPs, it works closely with the NTC to coordinate efforts and initiatives aimed at improving internet connectivity and expanding access to telecommunications services nationwide.
Is there a consumer group out there which has the gall to file a complaint against PLDT for shortchanging their customers? Imagine charging their subscribers with the full monthly subscription fee, but they regularly fail to deliver the required 24/7 internet service?
Maybe it’s time to switch to another ISP. I learned from our neighbors that Converge ICT offers a better service than PLDT and Globe. Speaking of consumer or class suits, I wrote a few weeks back (https://www. manilatimes.net/2024/01/27/opinion/ columns/anti-corruption-group-suesbsp-national-id-contractor/1929848) that the anti-corruption group, Crimes and Corruption Watch International Inc. (CCWII), headed by its chairman, Dr. Carlomagno Batalla, instituted an action against the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Philippine Identification ID (aka national ID) contractor, AllCard Inc. (ACI).
In their petition for prohibition and mandamus dated Jan. 25, 2024, CCWII pleaded before the Court of Appeals (CA) to issue a temporary restraining order “against respondent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas from acting on the compromise offer of respondent AllCard Inc. as specified in the latter’s letter dated July 12, 2023,” pending the resolution of the said petition. Their main prayer is for the CA to issue a writ of prohibition and mandamus “ordering and directing respondent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to impose the proper amount
of liquidated damages due to respondent AllCard Inc. and to penalize AllCard Inc. for its failure to deliver the goods as specified in their agreement with respondent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.”
Well, it turned out that in their final petition that was filed before the Court of Appeals, CCWII likewise impleaded former BSP governor Benjamin Diokno as a respondent. Based on the petition, Diokno was impleaded therein “for being the public official who approved and awarded the PhilSys project to respondent AllCard Inc.”
There was a positive development in that particular class suit. The CA’s Third Division rendered a resolution on Feb. 28, 2024. The dispositive portion of the resolution states:
“Without necessarily giving due course to the instant petition, the court orders BSP, Diokno and
ACI to file their respective comment[s] to the instant petition, considering that BSP did not reply to [the] petitioner’s letter dated 11 January 2024. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by the petitioner, the amount of liquidated damages supposed to be received by the BSP is at least P162,451,356.84. Should the BSP accept ACI’s compromise in the amount of P1,4504,995.89, then the State might suffer significant losses and damages…”
Therefore, the court ordered the respondents — BSP, Diokno and AllCard — to file their comments on the CCWII petition within 10 days of receipt of the CA resolution.