This case has been cited 8 times or more.
2014-07-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
Contrary to the petitioner's claim, EO No. 205 was not issued solely for the benefit of the free-signal TV networks. In fact, it was issued to end the monopoly of Sining Makulay, Inc. which was granted by then President Ferdinand Marcos an exclusive franchise, through Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1512, to operate CATV system anywhere within the Philippines.[37] EO No. 205 encouraged the growth of CATV operation when it expressly repealed PD No. 1512[38] thus encouraging competition in the CATV industry. As stated in the whereas clause of EO No. 205, the primary purpose of the law in regulating the CATV operations was for the protection of the public and the promotion of the general welfare. | |||||
2013-04-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
This is consistent with the "canon of legal hermeneutics that instead of pitting one statute against another in an inevitably destructive confrontation, courts must exert every effort to reconcile them, remembering that both laws deserve respect as the handiwork of coordinate branches of the government."[21] Hence, if there appears to be an apparent conflict between promulgated statutes, rules or regulations issued by different government instrumentalities, the proper action is not to immediately uphold one and annul the other, but rather give effect to both by harmonizing them if possible.[22] Accordingly, although the DENR requires a Wood Recovery Permit, an LGU is not necessarily precluded from promulgating, pursuant to its power under the general welfare clause, complementary orders, rules or ordinances to monitor and regulate the transportation of salvaged forest products. | |||||
2008-02-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
In Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[157] the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Batangas City enacted Resolution No. 210 granting Batangas CATV, Inc. a permit to operate a cable television (CATV) system in Batangas City. The Court held that the LGU did not have the authority to grant franchises to operate a CATV system because it was the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) that had the power under EO Nos. 205 and 436 to regulate CATV operations. EO 205 mandated the NTC to grant certificates of authority to CATV operators while EO 436 vested on the NTC the power to regulate and supervise the CATV industry. | |||||
2006-08-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
The general welfare clause is the delegation in statutory form of the police power of the State to LGUs. Through this, LGUs may prescribe regulations to protect the lives, health, and property of their constituents and maintain peace and order within their respective territorial jurisdictions. Accordingly, we have upheld enactments providing, for instance, the regulation of gambling, the occupation of rig drivers, the installation and operation of pinball machines, the maintenance and operation of cockpits, the exhumation and transfer of corpses from public burial grounds, and the operation of hotels, motels, and lodging houses as valid exercises by local legislatures of the police power under the general welfare clause.[35] | |||||
2006-06-30 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
Like all LGUs, the City of Marikina is empowered to enact ordinances for the purposes set forth in the Local Government Code (RA 7160). It is expressly vested with police powers delegated to LGUs under the general welfare clause of RA 7160.[8] With this power, LGUs may prescribe reasonable regulations to protect the lives, health, and property of their constituents and maintain peace and order within their respective territorial jurisdictions.[9] | |||||
2006-04-07 |
PANGANIBAN, CJ |
||||
Rates are fixed on the basis of the investment amount or property value that the public utility is allowed to earn -- an amount value otherwise called "rate base."[42] Property valuation is dependent on the particular circumstances and relevant facts affecting each utility.[43] After all, rate-fixing calls for a technical examination and a specialized review of specific details primarily entrusted to the administrative or regulating authority -- in the present case, the ERB.[44] | |||||
2005-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
In Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[16] we held that the NTC's regulatory power over the broadcasting and cable television industry extends to matters which are peculiarly within its competence. These include the: (1) determination of rates, (2) issuance of certificates of authority, (3) establishment of areas of operation, (4) examination and assessment of the legal, technical and financial qualifications of applicant operators, (5) granting of permits for the use of frequencies, (6) regulation of ownership and operation, (7) adjudication of issues arising from its functions, and (8) other similar matters.[17] With respect to the foregoing, therefore, the NTC exercises exclusive, original and primary jurisdiction to the exclusion of the regular courts. | |||||
2005-02-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
Our pronouncement in Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[11] is pertinent:There is no law specifically authorizing the LGUs to grant franchises to operate CATV system. Whatever authority the LGUs had before, the same had been withdrawn when President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1512 "terminating all franchises, permits or certificates for the operation of CATV system previously granted by local governments." Today, pursuant to Section 3 of E.O. No. 436, "only persons, associations, partnerships, corporations or cooperatives granted a Provisional Authority or Certificate of Authority by the NTC may install, operate and maintain a cable television system or render cable television service within a service area." |