G.R. No. 151908 August 12, 2003 SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

(SMART) and PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION (PILTEL), petitioners, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC), respondent. x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 152063 August 12, 2003 GLO E TELECOM, INC. (GLO E) and ISLA COMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. (ISLACOM), petitioners, vs. COURT O! APPEALS (T"e !or#er $t" %ivision) and t"e NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, respondents. !a&ts' The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued on June 16, 2000 Memorandum Circular No. 13-62000, romul!atin! rules and re!ulations on the "illin! o# telecommunications ser$ices. The Memorandum Circular ro$ided that it shall ta%e e##ect 1& da's a#ter its u"lication in a ne(s a er o# !eneral circulation and three certi#ied true co ies thereo# #urnished the )* +a( Center. ,t (as u"lished in the ne(s a er, The *hili ine -tar, on June 22, 2000. Mean(hile, the ro$isions o# the Memorandum Circular ertainin! to the sale and use o# re aid cards and the unit o# "illin! #or cellular mo"ile tele hone ser$ice too% e##ect .0 da's #rom the e##ecti$it' o# the Memorandum Circular. /n 0u!ust 30, 2000, the NTC issued a Memorandum to all cellular mo"ile tele hone ser$ice (CMT-) o erators (hich contained measures to minimi1e i# not totall' eliminate the incidence o# stealin! o# cellular hone units. This (as #ollo(ed "' another Memorandum dated /cto"er 6, 2000 addressed to all u"lic telecommunications entities. ,sla Communications Co., ,nc. and *ili ino Tele hone Cor oration #iled a!ainst the National Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Jose h 0. -antia!o, 2e ut' Commissioner 0urelio M. )mali and 2e ut' Commissioner Nestor C. 2acana', an action #or declaration o# nullit' o# NTC Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 (the 3illin! Circular) and the NTC Memorandum dated /cto"er 6, 2000, (ith ra'er #or the issuance o# a (rit o# reliminar' in4unction and tem orar' restrainin! order. *etitioners alle!ed that NTC has no 4urisdiction to re!ulate the sale o# consumer !oods such as the re aid call cards since such 4urisdiction "elon!s to the 2e artment o# Trade and ,ndustr' under the Consumer 0ct o# the *hili ines5 that the 3illin! Circular is o ressi$e, con#iscator' and $iolati$e o# the constitutional rohi"ition a!ainst de ri$ation o# ro ert' (ithout due rocess o# la(5 that the Circular (ill result in the im airment o# the $ia"ilit' o# the re aid cellular ser$ice "' undul' rolon!in! the $alidit' and ex iration o# the re aid -,M and call cards5 and that the re6uirements o# identi#ication o# re aid card "u'ers and call "alance announcement are unreasona"le. 7ence, the' ra'ed that the 3illin! Circular "e declared null and $oid a" initio. 8lo"e Telecom, ,nc and -mart Communications, ,nc. #iled a 4oint Motion #or +ea$e to ,nter$ene and to 0dmit Com laint-in-,nter$ention and this (as !ranted "' the trial court. 9es ondent NTC and its co-de#endants #iled a motion to dismiss the case on the !round o# etitioners: #ailure to exhaust administrati$e remedies. +i%e(ise, 8lo"e and ,slacom #iled a etition #or re$ie(, doc%eted as 8.9. No. 1&2063, assi!nin! the #ollo(in! errors. Thus, t(o etitions (ere consolidated in a 9esolution dated ;e"ruar' 1<, 2003. Iss(es'

1. =hether NTC has a 4urisdiction and not the re!ular courts o$er the case5 and 2. =hether 3illin! Circular issued "' NTC is unconstitutional and contrar' to la( and u"lic olic'. He)d' Jurisdiction: NTC vs. RTC 0dministrati$e a!encies ossess 6uasi-le!islati$e or rule-ma%in! o(ers and 6uasi-4udicial or administrati$e ad4udicator' o(ers. >uasi-le!islati$e or rule-ma%in! o(er is the o(er to ma%e rules and re!ulations (hich results in dele!ated le!islation that is (ithin the con#ines o# the !rantin! statute and the doctrine o# non-dele!a"ilit' and se ara"ilit' o# o(ers. The doctrine o# rimar' 4urisdiction a lies onl' (here the administrati$e a!enc' exercises its 6uasi-4udicial or ad4udicator' #unction. Thus, in cases in$ol$in! s eciali1ed dis utes, the ractice has "een to re#er the same to an administrati$e a!enc' o# s ecial com etence ursuant to the doctrine o# rimar' 4urisdiction. The courts (ill not determine a contro$ers' in$ol$in! a 6uestion (hich is (ithin the 4urisdiction o# the administrati$e tri"unal rior to the resolution o# that 6uestion "' the administrati$e tri"unal, (here the 6uestion demands the exercise o# sound administrati$e discretion re6uirin! the s ecial %no(led!e, ex erience and ser$ices o# the administrati$e tri"unal to determine technical and intricate matters o# #act, and a uni#ormit' o# rulin! is essential to com l' (ith the remises o# the re!ulator' statute administered. 7ence, the 9e!ional Trial Court has 4urisdiction to hear and decide Ci$il Case No. >-00-?2221. The Court o# 0 erred in settin! aside the orders o# the trial court and in dismissin! the case. Constitutiona it! o" t#$ Circu ar ,n 6uestionin! the $alidit' or constitutionalit' o# a rule or re!ulation issued "' an administrati$e a!enc', a art' need not exhaust administrati$e remedies "e#ore !oin! to court. This rinci le a lies onl' (here the act o# the administrati$e a!enc' concerned (as er#ormed ursuant to its 6uasi-4udicial #unction, and not (hen the assailed act ertained to its rule-ma%in! or 6uasi-le!islati$e o(er. 7o(e$er, (here (hat is assailed is the $alidit' or constitutionalit' o# a rule or re!ulation issued "' the administrati$e a!enc' in the er#ormance o# its 6uasi-le!islati$e #unction, the re!ular courts ha$e 4urisdiction to ass u on the same. The determination o# (hether a s eci#ic rule or set o# rules issued "' an administrati$e a!enc' contra$enes the la( or the constitution is (ithin the 4urisdiction o# the re!ular courts. ,n the case at "ar, the issuance "' the NTC o# Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated /cto"er 6, 2000 (as ursuant to its 6uasi-le!islati$e or rule-ma%in! o(er. Ru ing: Contrar' to the #indin! o# the Court o# 0 eals, the issues raised in the com laint do not entail hi!hl' technical matters. 9ather, (hat is re6uired o# the 4ud!e (ho (ill resol$e this issue is a "asic #amiliarit' (ith the (or%in!s o# the cellular tele hone ser$ice, includin! re aid -,M and call cards @ and this is 4udiciall' %no(n to "e (ithin the %no(led!e o# a !ood ercenta!e o# our o ulation @ and ex ertise in #undamental rinci les o# ci$il la( and the Constitution. 7ence, the consolidated etitions are !ranted "ut the decision o# the Court o# 0 eals on the ci$il cases are re$ersed and set aside. Thus, it is remanded to the court a 6uo #or continuation o# the roceedin!s. eals