This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or, in other words where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. It is not sufficient that a tribunal, in the exercise of its power, abused its discretion, such abuse must be grave. (Emphasis supplied) Assuming that PILTEL's petition for certiorari was proper, PILTEL nevertheless miserably failed to show that the NTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the NTC Order. The NTC is the regulatory agency of the national government with jurisdiction over all telecommunications entities. [19] The law expressly vests in the NTC the power and discretion to grant a provisional permit or authority.[20] In this case, the NTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it issued the questioned Order. The NTC Order explicitly provides for the basis of the issuance of the PA, as follows:The technical feasibility study submitted and offered in evidence by the applicant contains technical designs which consist of two main components, to wit: | |||||