Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATION CO.

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 205875 2015-06-30	LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK v. ATLOCOM WIRELESS SYSTEM VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Atlocom blamed NTC's three-year delay in resolving the motion for extension of PA for its inability to use the frequencies identified for its MMDS, as these were eventually re-allocated in 2005 under MC 06-08-2005. But as Atlocom was fully aware, Section 6 of R.A. No. 8605 provides that the Government may at anytime withdraw the frequency after due process. Records showed that a notice was duly published and a public hearing was actually conducted on July 12, 2005 by NTC on the proposed Memo Circular: Frequency Band Allocations for Broadcast Wireless Access. Said event was attended by representatives of the different broadcasting and telecommunication companies, including Atlocom.[25] The position papers and feedback submitted by various companies in connection with the proposed memorandum circular on wireless broadband access were all presented as evidence in the RTC.[26] We have held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side.[27] The requirements of due process were thus satisfied by the NTC in the re-allocation of frequency.
	GR NO. 153198 2006-07-11	CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Besides, evidentiary matters or matters of fact raised in the court below are not proper in petitions for certiorari.[12] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court[13] which is not a trier of facts.[14]
	GR NO. 128305 2005-03-28	FELINO QUIAMBAO v. CA TINGA, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency. Administrative agencies are given a wide latitude in the evaluation of evidence and in the exercise of their adjudicative functions, latitude which includes the authority to take judicial notice of facts within their special competence.[48]
	GR No. 138295 2003-08-28	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CARPIO, J.
In Republic v. Express Telecommunication Co., Inc.,[17] the Court ruled that Extelcom failed to exhaust available administrative remedies when it filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition without a motion for reconsideration, thus:Clearly, Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies when it went directly to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari and prohibition from the Order of the NTC dated May 3, 2000, without first filing a motion for reconsideration. It is well-settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari.