Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES v. INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION CORPORATION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 196112 2014-02-26	GMA NETWORK v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
GMA must be reminded that the NTC, insofar as the regulation of the telecommunications industry is concerned, has exclusive jurisdiction to "establish and prescribe rules, regulations, standards and specifications in all cases related to the issued Certificate of Public Convenience and administer and enforce the same."[39] As such, and considering further its expertise on the matter, its interpretation of the rules and regulations it itself promulgates are traditionally accorded by the Court with great weight and respect. As enunciated in Eastern Telecommunications Phils., Inc. v. International Communication Corporation:[40]
	GR No. 176343 2012-09-18	TRADE v. MA. ROSARIO S. MANALANG-DEMIGILLO BERSAMIN, J.
[18] Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. vs. International Communication Corporation, G.R. No. 135992, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 163, 167.
	GR No. 172623 2010-03-13	COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS v. CELSO M. PALER CORONA, J.
Being the central agency mandated to "prescribe, amend, and enforce rules and regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws," the CSC has the power to interpret its own rules and any phrase contained in them, with its interpretation significantly becoming part of the rules themselves.[37] The Court has consistently yielded and accorded great respect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of their own rules unless there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.[38]
	GR Nos. 175769-70 2009-01-19	ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. International Communication Corporation,[51] we held:The NTC, being the government agency entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under its special and technical forte, and possessing the necessary rule-making power to implement its objectives, is in the best position to interpret its own rules, regulations and guidelines. The Court has consistently yielded and accorded great respect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of their own rules unless there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.[52] With regard to the issue of the constitutionality of the must-carry rule, the Court finds that its resolution is not necessary in the disposition of the instant case. One of the essential requisites for a successful judicial inquiry into constitutional questions is that the resolution of the constitutional question must be necessary in deciding the case.[53] In Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals,[54] we held:
	GR No. 164314 2008-09-26	SECURITIES v. PICOP RESOURCES REYES, R.T., J.
In Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. International Communication Corporation,[76] the Court laid the guidelines in resolving disputes concerning the interpretation by an agency of its own rules and regulations, to wit: (1) Whether the delegation of power was valid; (2) Whether the regulation was within that delegation; (3) Whether it was a reasonable regulation under a due process test.[77]
	GR No. 162356 2008-04-14	DONG SEUNG INCORPORATED v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Thus, from the standpoint of compliance, [respondent] x x x submitted all the documentary requirements for the creation of a local/chapter in accordance with Section 1, Rule VI, D.O. 9 series of 1997.[28] (Emphasis supplied) Indeed, all that Article 235 requires is that the secretary's certification be under oath. It does not prescribe a specific manner of its notarization. Based on its interpretation of Article 235, the BLR, in its October 14, 1998 Advisory, allows for the wholesale notarization of a union's application for registration and recognizes the effects thereof even on the attachments, including the secretary's certification. This is a reasonable interpretation considering that the form of notarization contemplated in said Advisory adequately serves the purpose of Article 235, which is to forestall fraud and misrepresentation. More importantly, such interpretation of the BLR is accorded great weight by the Court for it is said agency which is vested with authority and endowed with expertise to implement the law in question.[29]