CCP-ECE5 Info and Message Board

2006-01-08T23:20:00.000+08:00

Hi guyz!.... tagal ko din hindi naka visit d2.... ang dami kasing ginagawa.... well di naman kakain ng malaking space itong post ko.... good luck na lang guyz sa atin lalong lalo na sa mga ka-batch ko specially ang TRIBU!...... pasensiya na kung di ako nakakatext sa inyo... dami kasi ginagawa sa trabaho... oo nga pala, you can reach me sa globe ko... number is 09155459955... pwede pa din dun sa smart ko... activated pa din yun... pareho ko naman ginagamit yun... you can email me nga pala sa jordan.cuento@gmail.com or sa jordan.cuento@bancnetonline.com... Till next time!... Godbless to everyone!... .

2005-11-26T07:02:00.000+08:00

This BLOG is DEAD!!

2005-06-06T02:50:00.000+08:00

What Sex Are They?

SHOE - male, because it is usually unpolished,
with its tongue hanging out.

ZIPLOC BAGS - male, because they hold everything in, but you can
always see right through them.

COPIER - female, because once turned off, it takes a while to warm up.

TIRE - male, because it goes bald and often is over inflated.

HOT AIR BALLOON - male, because to get it to go
anywhere you have to light a fire
under it...and, of course, there's the
hot air part.

SPONGES - female, because they are soft and squeezable and retain
water.

HOURGLASS - female, because over time, the
weight shifts to the bottom.

SUBWAY - male, because it uses the same old lines to pick people up.

HAMMER - male, because it hasn't evolved much over the last
5,000 years, but it's handy to have around.

REMOTE CONTROL - female....Ha! You thought I'd say male. But
consider, it gives men pleasure, he'd be lost
without it, and while he doesn't always know
the right buttons to push, he keeps trying.

May pic ako sa website ng CCP

2005-03-05T00:25:00.000+08:00

http://ccp.edu.ph/eseminar.html
http://ccp.edu.ph/pics2/e9.jpg

2005-02-16T01:41:00.000+08:00

Post ko sana yung link ni ethel booba. kaya lang baka may ma-offend..
Musta na kayo?
Sino-sino yung mga nagrereview? at saan?

Tingnan nyo mabuti:

2004-12-03T01:02:00.000+08:00

Bilangin nyo: 12 ba o 13?
Paki-explain nga..

OJT

2004-11-18T01:46:00.000+08:00

Good luck sa OJT nyo ha.. I heard na hirap kayong makakuha ng company na mapapag-OJT-han. Kung may mairerecommend lang sana ako na reliable..

Sana naman may magPOST na dito.. Malapit na mag-1000 ang hits natin dto. Good luck!

Merry Christmas!!!

2004-11-11T14:50:00.000+08:00

Santa is too big for the Chimney!!!
advance
Merry Christmas to all!!!

to whom this may concern.....

2004-10-21T13:16:00.000+08:00

invite nyo naman ako kung sino na ang may GMAIL account...... un lang.... flyerz_21@yahoo.com

ok na ang freedom blog....

2004-10-19T01:42:00.000+08:00

OK na guyz ang freedom blog...... pwede na magpost dun ang mga members ng freedomblog na di malalaman kung sino kayo...... its free for all..... contact nyo na lang ako kung magpapainvite kayo.... or post nyo email address nyo dito para mapadalhan ko kayo ng invitation..... check nyo ang FREEDOM BLOG.... may link sa righrt side nitong CCP-ECE5.....

WALANG MAKAKAALAM KUNG SINO KAYO!.... PROMISE!.......

Hi guyz!...

2004-10-09T06:38:00.000+08:00

Hi guyz!.... tagal ko ding hindi naka visit d2.... ang dami kasing ginagawa.... well di naman kakain ng malaking space itong post ko.... good luck na lang guyz sa finals at sa defense!...... gusto ko ng magbakasyon.... nakakapagod itong sem na ito.....

musta na kayo?

2004-10-07T01:19:00.000+08:00

post naman..

check nyo to

2004-10-07T01:08:00.000+08:00

percdc.virtualreviewer.com

browse nyo lang..
good day!

lapit na sembreak..

2004-10-06T01:23:00.000+08:00

Kaya lang 2 weeks lang..
Nov2 daw ang pasok..
Bitin yun!!

Sir....

2004-10-05T09:36:00.001+08:00

Sir Vic...
THANK
YOU
PO...
(sa jeep)

Sir....

2004-10-05T09:36:00.000+08:00

Sir Vic...
THANK
YOU
PO...
(sa jeep)

fvictor.blogspot.com

2004-10-05T01:23:00.000+08:00

daan lang kayo..

McDO scandal..

2004-10-03T21:41:00.000+08:00

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 467

2004-09-29T01:00:00.000+08:00

PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON THE OPERATION AND USE OF INTERNATIONAL SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS IN THE COUNTRY

WHEREAS, the State, recognizing the vital role of communications in nation building, is committed to promote the establishment of communications structures responsive to information technology of the country;
WHEREAS, the provision of modern, efficient, and adequate satellite telecommunications facilities and services will promote the pole vaulting strategy of the government to lunch the country as a telecommunications hub in the Asia-Pacific region by the 21st century;
WHEREAS, there is a need to broaden the access by authorized entities to international satellite systems and services and thereby, accelerate the attainment of the development thrusts for the local telecommunications sector;
NOW, THEREFORE, I FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order the adoption as a national policy, of the following policy guidance in the operation and use of satellite communications in the country.
Section 1. Policy Guidance. The following guidance and regulations shall govern the operation and use of the following satellite telecommunications facilities and services in the country:
a. Access to International Fixed Satellite Systems. Enfranchised telecommunications entities duly authorized by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to provide international telecommunications services shall be allowed direct access to all international fixed satellite systems. Broadcast service providers may also be allowed to directly access international fixed satellite systems subject to NTC rules, regulations and authorizations.
b. Access to International Mobile Satellite Systems. Direct access to international mobile satellite services shall be allowed for maritime, aeronautical and land mobile uses, subject to NTC rules and regulations. For this purpose, the DOTC/NTC shall recognize the authorization and/or certification of foreign-registered mobile units designed to access international mobile satellite systems, provided they are consistent with said NTC rules and regulations.
c. Use of Satellite Newsgathering (SNG) Earth Stations. The government shall take a permissive approach on the use and operation of SNG earth stations owned or operated by foreign news media organizations, for a limited period of time as defined by NTC. Foreign news media organizations wanting to bring SNG earth stations into the country shall secure a special NTC permit.
d. Operation and Use of Global Mobile Personal Communication by Satellite (GMPCS). The government shall allow the operation and use of GMPCS to contribute to the attainment of universal access, subject to NTC rules and regulations. In this connection, GMPCS systems shall be required to interconnect with existing terrestrial systems in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 59 (Guidelines for Compulsory Interconnection of Authorized Public Telecommunications Carriers) and its Implementing Guidelines.
e. Provision of Direct to Home TV Services. The government shall allow the reception of Direct to Home TV signals from content providers utilizing international satellite systems, provided the video programs thereto are authorized by appropriate government agency(ies). Equipment for the reception of Direct to Home TV signals shall be provided by duly authorized entities. Moreover, uplink centers for transmission or retransmission in the Philippines, subject to existing laws and procedures formulated by the NTC.
Section 2. Policy of Terms. The NTC, in coordination with the concerned agencies and sectors, shall formulate and adopt, not later than forty-five days from the effectivity of this order, the necessary implementing rules and regulations for the implementation of the above policy guidance, including the monitoring system for their implementation.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Order and in the implementation of the above policy guidance, the following definitions shall apply:
a. Direct Access - any one of a number of measures permitting direct dealings between authorized entities and international satellite system providers at specified levels as defined by the NTC.
b. Direct Home (DTH) TV - a broadcasting system wherein television programs are transmitted directly to home/user receivers via satellite, thus making the reception cover not only individual(s) in their homes but other places as well.
c. Fixed Satellite Service - a radio communications service between earth stations at given points, when one or more satellites are used; the given position may be specific point or any fixed points within specified areas.
d. Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite - a satellite system providing telecommunications services directly to end-users anywhere in the globe form a constellation of satellites.
e. Mobile Satellite Service - a radio communications service between mobile earth stations and one or more space stations, or between space stations used by this service, or between mobile earth stations by means of one or more space stations.
f. Satellite Newsgathering - the use of either transportable, "Fixed Satellite Services" earth stations or "Mobile Satellite Service" earth stations to provide temporary communications services for news media organizations covering news events such as summits, conferences or disasters.
Section 4. Policy Review. The DOTC, in consultation with the concerned agencies and sectors, shall regularly review the responsiveness of the above policy, shall regularly review the responsiveness of the above policy guidance and based on this, submit policy recommendations to the office of the President.
Section 5. Repealing Clause. All executive orders, administrative orders and other executive issuance's inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
Section 6. Effectivity. This Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 17th day of March in the year of our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and ninety-eight.
By the President:
ALEXANDER P. AGUIRREExecutive Secretary

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 109

2004-09-28T23:59:00.000+08:00

POLICY TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER SERVICE

WHEREAS, local exchange service is fundamental to the goal of providing universal access to basic and other telecommunications services;
WHEREAS, during the development phase, cost-based pricing of services such as national and international long distance and other telecommunications services may be employed to generate funds which my then be used to subsidize the local exchange service;
WHEREAS, while the telecommunications sector as a whole is profitable, the profits mainly come from the toll services particularly from the international long distance service; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to promulgate new policy directives to meet the targets of Government through the National Telecommunications Development Plan (NTDP) of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), specifically: (1) to ensure the orderly development of the telecommunications sector through the provision of service to all areas of the country, (2) to satisfy the unserviced demand for telephones and (3) to provide healthy competition among authorized service providers.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law do hereby order:

Section 1. Definition of Terms. The following definitions shall apply within the context of this policy:
(a) Basic Telecommunications Service - refers to local exchange residence and business telephone service and telegraph service without additional features; (b) Cost-based pricing - refers to a system of pricing in which the actual cost of providing service establishes the basic charge to which a fixed mark-up is added to collect a standard charge to all users without discrimination; (c) Local Exchange Carrier Service - refers to a telecommunications service, primarily but not limited to voice-to-voice service, within a contiguous geographic area furnished to individual
Subscribers under a common local exchange rate schedule;
(d) Value-based pricing - also known as value of service pricing refers to a system of pricing where cost of .service establishes the minimum charge and a variable mark-up is added to collect revenue from those who value .the service more highly; and (e) Universal Access - refers to the availability of reliable and affordable telecommunications service in both urban and rural areas of the country.
Section 2 Objective. The objective of this policy is to improve the provision of local exchange service in unserved and underserved areas as defined by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), thus promoting universal access to basic telecommunications service.
Section 3. General Policy. The Government shall pursue the policy of democratization in the ownership and operation of telecommunication facilities and services.
Section 4. Cross-Subsidy. Until universal access to basic telecommunications service is achieved, and such service is priced to reflect actual costs, local exchange service- shall continue to be cross-subsidized by other telecommunications services within the same company.
Section 5. Service- Packaging. Authorized international gateway operators shall be required to provide local exchange service in unserved and underserved areas, including Metro Manila, within three (3) years from the grant of an authority from the NTC, under the following guidelines:
(a) Authorized gateway operators shall provide a minimum of three hundred (300) local exchange lines per international switch termination; (b) At least one (1) rural exchange line shall be provided for every ten (10) urban local exchange lines installed; (c) The establishment of Public Calling Offices at the rural barangay level shall be given an appropriate credit by the NTC towards the obligation to provide local exchange service.
The above figures are derived from the following factors: number of exchange lines, number of international switch-terminations, traffic, grade of service and demand;
(d) No permit for an international gateway facility shall be granted an applicant unless there is a clear showing that it can establish the necessary foreign correspondenceships; and (e) Carriers already providing local exchange service in accordance with Section (a) , (b) and (c) shall be authorized to operate aninternationall gateway subject to applicable laws. Section 6. Subsidiary. The subsidiaries of a public telecommunication carrier operating an authorized international gateway shall not be allowed to operate another gateway in accordance with Executive Order No. 59 (1993).
For this purpose, a telecommunications company shall be considered as a subsidiary if any or all of the following conditions exists:
(a) The two companies share the services of key operating and management personnel; (b) The shareholdings of one company, together with the shareholdings of its stockholders, in the other company aggregate more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding capital stock of the letter company; or (c) One company and its stockholders have a combined exposure in the other company in the form of loans, advances, or asset-lease equivalent to more than fifty percent (50%) of the capital accounts of the other company.
Section 7. Cellular Mobile Telephone System. Authorized international gateway operator may also be authorized to provide Cellular Mobile Telephone System (CMTS) service and other non-basic telecommunications service which are possible source of subsidy for local exchange carrier service.
Section 8. Non-Basic Services. Authorized providers of other non-basic telecommunications service which are possible sources of subsidy shall be required to provide local exchange carrier service in accordance with guidelines, rules and regulations prescribed by the NTC.
Section 9. Duration of Services. The obligation to provide local exchange carrier service shall remain in force for as long as the service providers described in Sections 5, 7 and 8 hold their authorizations to provide their respective non-basic services.
Section 10. Other Requirements. The foregoing provisions shall be without prejudice to the other requirements for the grant of franchises and Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity.
Section 11. Interconnection Requirement. All telecommunications service networks shall be interconnected in a non-discriminatory manner in accordance with Executive order No. 59 (1993) and its implementing guidelines.
Section 12. Financial Reporting Requirements. The internal subsidy flows shall be made explicit in the financial reporting system of the telecommunications service providers.
Section 13. Policy Implementation. The NTC is hereby directed to promulgate the guidelines, rules and regulations to implement this Executive Order within (30) thirty days from the effective date of this Executive Order.
Section 14. Violations. Any violation of the Executive Order shall be subject to the same penalties provided for in Section 13 of Executive Order No. 59 (1993).
Section 15. Transitory Provisions. Existing telecommunicationsservicee providers described in Section 5, 7 and 8 shall have a period of five (5) years to comply with the above requirements to provide local exchange service.
Section 16. Pending Applications. Telecommunications service providers with existing and pending applications for International Gateway Facility, Cellular Mobile System (CMTS) and other Value Added Services (VAS) providers need not revise their applications with the NTC. However, upon issuance of the Provisional Authority of CPCN, as the case may be, they shall be given a period of three (3) months within which to submit and file the necessary applications for local exchange service in accordance with the provisions hereof.
Section 17. Repealing Clause. All executive orders, administrative orders and other Executive issuance inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, modified or amended accord.
Section 18. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 12th day of July in the year of the Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Three.
(sgd) FIDEL V. RAMOS
By the President:
TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR.Executive Secretary

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 59

2004-09-28T23:57:00.000+08:00

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 59

PRESCRIBING THE POLICY GUIDELINES FOR COMPULSORY INTERCONNECTION OF AUTHORIZED PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIERS IN ORDER TO CREATE A UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE AND FULLY INTEGRATED NATIONWIDE TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND THEREBY ENCOURAGE GREATER PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS

WHEREAS, in recognition of the vital role of communications in nation-building, it has become the objective of government to promote advancement in the field of telecommunications and the expansion of telecommunications services and facilities in all areas of the Philippines;
WHEREAS, there is a need to enhance effective competition in the telecommunications industry in order to promote the State policy of providing the environment for the emergence of communications structures suitable to the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country;
WHEREAS, there is a need to maximize the use of telecommunications facilities available and to encourage investment in telecommunications infrastructure by service providers duly authorized by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC);
WHEREAS, there is a need to ensure that all users of the public telecommunications service have access to all other users of the service wherever they may be within the Philippines at an acceptable standard of service and at reasonable cost;
WHEREAS, the much needed advancement in the field of telecommunications and expansion of telecommunications services and facilities will be promoted by the effective interconnection of public telecommunications carriers or service operators;
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in the case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. The National Telecommunications Commission [G.R. No. 88404, 18 October 1990, 190 SCRA 717, 734], categorically declared that "Rep. Act No. 6849, or the Municipal Telephone Act of 1989, approved on 8 February 1990, mandates interconnection providing as it does that 'all domestic telecommunications carriers or utilities . . . shall be interconnected to the public switch telephone network.'";
WHEREAS, under Executive Order No. 546 dated 23 July 1979, as amended, the NTC has the power, as the public interest may require, "to encourage a larger and more effective use of communications facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private entities whenever the NTC finds it reasonably feasible"; and
WHEREAS, there is a need to prescribe the consolidated policy guidelines to implement Rep. Act No. 6849 and Executive Order No. 546, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:

Section 1. The NTC shall expedite the interconnection of all NTC authorized public telecommunications carriers into a universally accessible and fully integrated nationwide telecommunications network for the benefit of the public.
Section 2. Interconnection between NTC authorized public telecommunications carriers shall be compulsory. Interconnection shall mean the linkage, by wire, radio, satellite or other means, of tow or more existing telecommunications carriers or operators with one another for the purpose of allowing or enabling the subscribers of one carrier or operator to access or reach the subscribers of the other carriers or operators.
Section 3. Interconnection shall be established and maintained at such point or points of connections, preferably at the local exchanges level and at the junction side of trunk exchanges as are required within a reasonable time frame and shall be for sufficient capacity and in sufficient number to enable messages conveyed or to be conveyed to conveniently meet all reasonable traffic demands for conveyance of messages between the system of the parties involved in the interconnection.
Section 4. Interconnection shall permit the customer of either party freedom of choice on whose system the customer wishes his call to be routed regardless which system provides the exchange line connecting to the local exchange. Such a choice may be done initially through the use of distinct carrier access code assigned to the relevant connectable system and ultimately, as the local exchange providers upgrade to stored-program-controlled (SPC) exchanges, comparatively efficient interconnect (CEI) or equal access pre-programmed option.
Section 5. Interconnection shall be mandatory with regard to connecting other telecommunications services such as but not limited to value-added services of radio paging, trunking radio, store and forward systems of facsimile or messaging (voice or data), packet switching and circuit data switching (including the conveyance of messages which have been or are to be transmitted or received at such points of connection), information and other services as the NTC may determine to be in the interest of the public and in the attainment of the objective of a universally accessible, fully integrated nationwide telecommunications network.
Section 6. Interconnection shall be negotiated and effected through bilateral negotiations between the parties involved subject to certain technical/operational and traffic settlement rules to be promulgated by the NTC; Provided, that if the parties fail to reach an agreement within ninety (90) days from date of notice to the NTC and the other party of the request to negotiate, the NTC shall, on application of any of the parties involved, determine the terms and conditions that the parties have not agreed upon but which appear to the NTC to be reasonably necessary to effect a workable and equitable interconnection and traffic settlement.
Section 7. Interconnection among public communications carriers shall be effected in such a manner that permits rerouting of calls from an international gateway operator which is rendered inoperative, whether in whole or in part, in the event of strikes, lock-outs, disasters, calamities and similar causes, to another international gateway operator not so affected. A public telecommunications carrier shall be allowed such permits to operate an international gateway as may be necessary to service its own network requirements; Provided, that its subsidiaries shall not be given a permit to operate another international gateway.
Section 8. In prescribing the applicable technical/operational and traffic settlement rules, the NTC shall consider the following:
8.1 The technical/operational rules should conform with the relevant recommendations of the Consultative Committee on International Telegraph and Telephone (CCITT) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
8.2 For traffic settlement rules:
(a) Either meet-on-the-air and/or midpoint circuit interconnection between parties; (b) For local exchange point of interconnection, settlement shall be on the basis of volume of traffic on the local connection based on per minute with day and night rate differential. In case of store and forward services for facsimile, data and voice mail, settlement shall be on the basis of equivalent monthly trunk line charges as generally charged by the local exchange carrier (LEC) to its customer owning their own PABX; (c) For junction exchange point of interconnection, settlement shall be on the basis of volume of traffic carrier over:
(i) short haul connection not exceeding 150 kilometers; and (ii) long haul connection exceeding 150 kilometers.
Similarly, a per minute rate shall be evolved with day and night differential. The determination of the per minute rate is based on the principle of recognizing recovery of the toll related cost and fair return of the investment of the facilities employed in making the toll call exchange between the systems.
(d) Subsidies which shall be approved on the basis of the sound public policy shall be allowed in two (2) ways: (i) for operator assisted calls - an operator surcharge kept by the system that employs the operator; and (ii) access charge - the principle of access charge is an assistance to the unprofitable rural telephone development, remote pay stations, etc., thereby assuring the universal service obligation of the PSTN operators. The introduction of the access charge may result in a charge that will be passed on to the subscribers of the PSTN.
Section 9. Interconnection shall at all times satisfy the requirements of effective competition and shall be effected in a non-discriminatory manner.
Section 10. The Points of Connection (PC) between public telecommunications carriers shall be defined by the NTC, and the apportionment of costs and division of revenues resulting from interconnection of telecommunications networks shall be approved or prescribed by the NTC.
Section 12. Interconnection and revenue-sharing agreements approved or prescribed by the NTC may be revoked, revised, or amended as the NTC deems fit in the interest of the public service.
Section 13. In the implementation of this Executive Order, the NTC may, after due notice and hearing, impose the following penalties in case of violation of any of the provisions hereof:
13.1. Imposition of such administrative fines, penalties and sanctions as may be allowed or prescribed by existing laws; 13.2. Suspension of further action on all pending and future applications for permits, licenses or authorizations of the violating carrier or operator and in which particular case, the NTC shall be exempted from compliance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 26 dated 7 October 1992 on the period for the disposition of cases or matters pending before it; 13.3. With the approval of the President, directive to the appropriate government financial or lending institutions to withhold the releases on any loan or credit accommodation which the violating carrier or operator may have with them; 13.4. Disqualification of the employees, officers or directors of the violating carrier or operator from being employed in any enterprise or entity under the supervision of the NTC; and 13.5. In appropriate cases, suspension of the authorized rates for any service or services of the violating carrier or operator without disruption of its services to the public.
Section 14. The NTC is directed to promulgate the implementing rules to this Executive Order within ninety (90) days from the date of effectivity hereof.
Section 15. All executive orders, administrative orders, and other issuance inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
Section 16. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 24th day of February in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Three.
(Sgd.) FIDEL V. RAMOS By the President
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIOChief Presidential Legal Counsel

RA 6849

2004-09-28T23:55:00.000+08:00

Republic of the PhilippinesCONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINESMetro Manila
Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila on Monday, the twenty-fourth day of July, nineteen hundred and eighty nine.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6849

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC TELEPHONES IN EACH AND EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Title. - This act shall be known as the "Municipal Telephone Act of 2000."
SECTION 2. Declaration of National Day Policy. - Recognizing that the benefits of modern communication technology are as important to rural development as they are to urban areas, the State shall pursue and foster, in an orderly, purposive and vigorous manner, the interconnection of all municipalities in the country through the establishment and early realization of a nationwide network of public calling stations.
SECTION 3. Projects Office. - For purposes of administering the provisions of this Act, there is hereby created a Municipal Telephone Projects Office in the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) with the following functions:
(a) Develop, in coordination with all other agencies concerned, a plan for providing public calling stations with technology capable of voice and data transmission in every municipality and, when feasible, in such barangay not otherwise served by an existing telephone exchange using appropriate technology and for this purpose formulate or cause to be formulated, engineering studies;
(b) Undertake the implementation of the said plans and programs and toward this end, to enter into contracts subject to existing laws and regulations for the procurement of equipment, construction of facilities and the installation of the system;
(c) Arrange for funding form any source, private, government, foreign or domestic, including official development assistance, bilateral and multilateral loans subject to applicable laws and regulations;
(c) Prescribe and ensure compatibility with minimum standards and regulations to assure acceptable standards of construction, maintenance, operation,
(d) personnel training, accounting and fiscal practices for the municipal telecommunications operators of public calling stations;
(e) Furnish technical assistance and personnel training programs for the municipal telecommunications operators of public calling stations;
(f) Monitor and evaluate local telecommunications and effect system integration and operations whenever economically and technically feasible
Provided, however, That the approval of the provincial government of the province where any or all of the functions above mentioned are to be discharge is first secured.
SECTION 4. Management of the Projects Office. - A projects Director, who shall be a person of integrity, competence and experience in technical fields related to the purposes of this Act, shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Transportation and Communications. He shall have the rank, position and emoluments of an undersecretary.
The Projects Director shall have the following powers and duties;
(a) To execute and administer the plans and projects for the realization of the policy set forth in this Act;(b) To direct and supervise the operation and internal administration of the Projects Office and, for this purpose, to delegate some or any of his powers and duties to appropriate subordinate officials;(c) Subject to the guidelines and policies established by the Secretary of Transportation and Communications, to appoint and in coordination with the Department of Budget and Management fix the number and compensation of officials and employees of the Projects Office, subject to Civil Service Law;(d) To prepare an annual report on the activities of the Projects Office on or before the end of the first quarter after the fiscal year completed and to submit a copy thereof to the President of the Philippines and the Congress of the Philippines; and(e) To exercise such other powers and duties that are proper or necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act as may be vested in him by the Secretary of Transportation and Communications.
SECTION 5. Rights of First Option. - All domestic telecommunications carriers or utilities existing at the time of the affectivity of this Act, and franchised to service a province or region WHICH shall have been certified by the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) as rendering satisfactory and competent service in its area of operation, are hereby given, under equal conditions and circumstances, the first option to provide, install and operate public calling stations or telephones in provincial communications network which shall be capable of voice and data transmission and shall be interconnected to the public switched telephone network or other national transmission facilities. The intention to exercise the option shall be made specifically in writing to the Projects Office within six (6) months of the affectivity of this shall indicate the preferred province and the time frame of development. Private operators or franchisees of such public calling stations shall be entitled to the same benefits and privileges enjoyed by those installed and operated by Government in so far as tax concessions and/or incentives are concerned.
SECTION 6. Frequency Allocation. - In order to accelerate the implementation of this project, National Telecommunication Commission (NTC) is authorized to assign or reassign, when necessary, existing radio frequency users currently operating.
SECTION 7. Rates and Mandatory Sharing of Toll Revenue. - The NTC, subject to its standard guidelines and in consultation with the regional development councils concerned, shall fix an equitable, reasonable and uniform rate of charges for every type of call. A rate schedule shall be set for all municipal telephone calls under the following classifications:
(a) Municipal to International;(b) Municipal to Metro Manila, and other domestic long distance calls;(c) Municipal to Provincial Capital;(d) Municipal to Municipal;
(1) of the same province(2) of difference provinces, other than domestic long distance.
In connection with the rates, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), in consultation with the toll network operators or interchange carriers and the provincial government concerned, shall authorize and cause the implementation of an equitable toll revenue sharing and collection scheme. The share of the local exchange operators in toll revenues shall be remitted by the interchange carries to them within ninety days (90) form receipt.
SECTION 8. Timetable of Implementation. - The Projects Office shall install all public calling stations for provinces and municipalities not covered by private communication utilities under Section 5 hereof, such that each one of the municipalities in the Philippines still unserved by telephone at the affectivity of this Act, shall have at least one (1) public calling station or public telephone by the third year of effectively of this Act. Where resources permit, the Projects Office shall also extend the services concurrently or subsequently to other remote barangays of the country. The public calling stations shall be interconnected to the public switched telephone network or other national transmission facilities, subject to the technical interconnection standards prescribed by the NTC.
SECTION 9. Operation by Local Governments. - Provinces and municipalities are hereby authorized to set up, operate and maintain their respective public calling stations or to grant franchise to private entities for the operation and maintenance of telephone systems and/or public calling stations: Provided, That the NTC certifies that the proposed grantee is technically and financially capable of complying with all the requirements of public services.
SECTION 10. Appropriation. - The amount of two hundred million pesos (P200,000,000.00), or so much thereof as may be necessary to implement the provisions of this Act, shall be taken from the appropriations provided under Title 1 - Telecommunications of Executive Order No. 182. In addition, the sum of three hundred million pesos (P300,000,000.00), or so much thereof in equivalent foreign currencies as may be necessary, shall be source, in their order of preference, from foreign grants, concessional loans, official development assistance, commercial loans, and/or export credits to meet the objective of this Act.
SECTION 11. Official Development Assistance. - The provisions of Executive Order No. 230 of 1986, on the power of the NEDA Board, and the rules and regulations governing the evaluation and authorization for the availment of Official Development Assistance notwithstanding, the municipal telephone program provided for in this Act shall be eligible for foreign loans and grants without further evaluation by the NEDA Board, subject to Section 21, Article XII of the Constitution.
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
SECTION 12. Sunset Clause. - The projects Office shall not have a life exceeding ten (10) years from the d ate of the approval of this Act and may only be extended by act of Congress. At the options of the provincial government, the systems operating in each province shall be turned over to it, except those operating under Section 5 thereof.
SECTION 13. Separability of Provisions. - Any portion or provisions of this Act that may be declared unconstitutional or invalid shall not have the effect of nullifying other portions and provisions hereof as long as such remaining portions or provisions can still subsist and be given effect in their entirety.
SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. - All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are repealed or modified accordingly.
SECTION 15. Effectivity. - This act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

APPROVED,
(SGD.) RAMON V. MITRASpeaker of the House of Representatives
(Sgd.) JOVITO R. SALONGAPresident of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 892 and House Bill No. 3452 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on December 20, 1989 and December 21, 1989 respectively.
(Sgd.) QUIRINO D. ABAD SANTOS, JR.Secretary of the House of Representatives
(Sgd.) EDWIN P. ACOBAApproved: February 8, 1990Secretary of the Senate
(Sgd.) CORAZON C. AQUINOPresident of the Philippines

RA 7925

2004-09-28T23:48:00.000+08:00

Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of the PhilippinesMetro Manila
Third Regular Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday the twenty-fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and ninety-four.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7925 ]
AN ACT TO PROMOTE AND GOVERN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHILIPPINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE DELIVERY OF PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled.
ARTICLE I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. Short Title - This Act shall be known as the "Public Telecommunications Policy Act of the Philippines."
SEC. 2. Scope and Application - This Act shall apply to all public telecommunications entities in the Philippines.
SEC. 3. Definitions and Interpretations - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall be used:
a) Telecommunications - any process which enables a telecommunications entity to relay and receive voice, data, electronic messages, written or printed matter, fixed or moving pictures, words, music or visible or audible signals or any control signals of any design and for any purpose by wire, radio or other electromagnetic, spectral, optical or technological means.
b) Public telecommunications entity - any person, firm, partnership or corporation, government or private, engaged in the provision of telecommunications services to the public for compensation.
c) Broadcasting - an undertaking the object of which is to transmit over-the-air commercial radio or television messages for reception of a broad audience in a geographic area.
d) Franchise - a privilege conferred upon a telecommunications entity by Congress, authorizing that entity to engage in a certain type of telecommunications service.
e) Local exchange operator - an entity providing transmission and switching of telecommunications services, primarily but not limited to voice-to-voice service, in a geographic area anywhere in the Philippines.
f) Inter-exchange carrier - an entity, sometimes referred to as carrier's carrier or national backbone network operator, authorized to install, own and operate facilities which connect local exchanges within the Philippines and to engage in the business of inter-exchange national long distance services.
g) International carrier - an entity primarily engaged in the business of providing transmission and switching of any telecommunications service between the Philippines and any other point of the world to which it has an existing correspondent or prospective interconnection agreements.
h) Value-added service provider (VAS) - an entity which relying on the transmission, switching and local distribution facilities of the local exchange and inter-exchange operators, and overseas carriers, offers enhanced services beyond those ordinarily provided for by such carriers.
i) Public toll calling station - a non-exclusive facility at which the public may, by the payment of appropriate fees, place as well as receive telephone calls and/or telegrams or other messages.
j) Mobile radio telephone system - a wide area mobile, radio telephone system with its own switch, base stations and transmission facilities capable of providing high capacity mobile telecommunications by utilizing radio frequencies.
k) Interconnection - the linkage, by wire, radio, satellite or other means, of two or more existing telecommunications carriers or operators with one another for the purpose of allowing or enabling the subscribers of one carrier or operator to access or reach the subscribers of the other carriers or operators.

ARTICLE II. POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
SEC. 4. Declaration of National Policy - Telecommunications is essential to the economic development, integrity and security of the Philippines, and as such shall be developed and administered as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the economic, cultural, social and political fabric of the Philippines. The growth and development of telecommunications services shall be pursued in accordance with the following policies:
a) A fundamental objective of government is to develop and maintain a viable, efficient, reliable and universal telecommunication infrastructure using the best available and affordable technologies, as a vital tool to nation building and development;
b) The expansion of the telecommunications network shall give priority to improving and extending basic services to areas not yet served. For this purpose, government shall promote a fair, efficient and responsive market to stimulate growth and development of the telecommunications facilities and services, with emphasis on the accessibility by persons to basic services in unserved and underserved areas of affordable rates;
c) The radio frequency spectrum is a scarce public resource that shall be administered in the public interest and in accordance with international agreements and conventions to which the Philippines is a party and granted to the best qualified. The government shall allocate the spectrum to service providers who will use it efficiently and effectively to meet public demand for telecommunications service and may avail of new and cost effective technologies in the use of methods for its utilization;
d) Rates and tariff charges shall be fair, just and reasonable and for this purpose, the regulatory body shall develop tariff structures based on socioeconomic factors and on financial, technical and commercial criteria as measures to ensure a fair rate of return as a tool to ensure economic and social development;
e) Public telecommunications services shall be provided by private enterprises. The private sector shall be the engine of rapid and efficient growth in the telecommunications industry;
f) A healthy competitive environment shall be fostered, one in which telecommunications carriers are free to make business decisions and to interact with one another in providing telecommunications services, with the end in view of encouraging their financial viability while maintaining affordable rates;
g) A fair and reasonable interconnection of facilities of authorized public network operators and other providers of telecommunications services is necessary in order to achieve a viable, efficient, reliable and universal telecommunications services;
h) The government shall give all the assistance and encouragement to Philippine international carriers in order to establish interconnection with other countries so as to provide access to international communications highways on a competitive basis;
i) For efficiency, practicability, and convenience, but with due regard to the observance of due process at all times, regulation of telecommunications entities shall rely principally on an administrative process that is stable, transparent and fair, giving due emphasis to technical, legal, economic and financial considerations;
j) No single franchise shall authorize an entity to engage in both telecommunications and broadcasting, either through the airwaves or by cable;
k) Ownership of public telecommunications entities to as wide a number of people as possible, preferably to its customers, in order to encourage efficiency and public accountability and to tap personal savings shall be encouraged;
(l) The development of a domestic telecommunications manufacturing industry to meet the needs of the Philippines and to take advantage of export opportunities shall be promoted without preventing, deterring or hampering the goal of full universal service; and
m) Human resources skills and capabilities must be harnessed and improved to sustain the growth and the development of telecommunications under a fast changing telecommunications environment.

ARTICLE III. ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 5. Responsibilities of the National Telecommunications Commission. - The National Telecommunications Commission (Commission) shall be the principal administrator of this Act and as such shall take the necessary measures to implement the policies and objectives set forth in this Act. Accordingly, in addition to its existing functions, the Commission shall be responsible for the following:
a) Adopt an administrative process which would facilitate the entry of qualified service providers and adopt a pricing policy which would generate sufficient returns to encourage them to provide basic telecommunications services in unserved and underserved areas;
b) Ensure quality, safety, reliability, security, compatibility and inter-operability of telecommunications facilities and services in conformity with standards and specifications set by international radio and telecommunications organizations to which the Philippines is a signatory;
c) Mandate a fair and reasonable interconnection of facilities of authorized public network operators and other providers of telecommunications services through appropriate modalities of interconnection and at a reasonable and fair level of charges which make provision for the cross subsidy to unprofitable local exchange service areas so as to promote telephone density and provide the most extensive access to basic telecommunications services available at affordable rates to the public;
d) Foster fair and efficient market conduct through, but not limited to, the protection of telecommunications entities from unfair trade practices of other carriers;
e) Promote consumers welfare by facilitating access to telecommunications services whose infrastructure and network must be geared towards the needs of individual and business users;
f) Protect consumers against misuse of telecommunications entity's monopoly or quasi-monopolistic powers by but not limited to the investigation of complaints and exacting compliance with service standards from such entity; and
g) In the exercise of its regulatory powers, continue to impose such fees and charges as may be necessary to cover reasonable costs and expenses for the regulation and supervision of the operations of telecommunications entities.
SEC. 6. Responsibilities of and Limitations to Department Powers. - The Department of Transportation and Communications (Department) shall not exercise any power which will tend to influence or effect a review or a modification of the Commission's quasi-judicial functions.
In coordination with the Commission, however, the Department shall, in accordance with the policies enunciated in this Act, be responsible for:
a) the development and maintenance of a long-term strategic national development plan for telecommunications to serve as a guide to the industry and potential investors as well as to the Commission;
b) the coordination of research and development activities in government with the work of other institutions in the field of telecommunications;
c) the representation and promotion of Philippine interests in international bodies, and the negotiation of the nation's rights and obligations in international telecommunications matters; and
d) the operation of a national consultative forum to facilitate interaction amongst the telecommunications industries, user groups, academic and research institutions in the airing and resolution of important issues in the field of communications.

ARTICLE IV. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENTITIES
SEC. 7. Categories of Telecommunications Entities. - A telecommunications entity shall be authorized to operate in one or more of the telecommunications categories mentioned in this Act provided each category is covered by its franchise.
SEC. 8. Local Exchange Operator. - A local exchange operator shall:
a) provide universal basic telephone service to all subscribers who applied for such service, within a reasonable period and at such standards as may be prescribed by the Commission and at such tariff as to sufficiently give it a fair return on its investments.
b) be protected from uncompensated bypass or overlapping operations of other telecommunications entities in need of physical links or connections to its customers in the area except when it is unable to provide, within a reasonable period of time and at desired standard, the interconnection arrangements required by such entities.
c) have the first option to provide pay telephone services or public calling stations in the area covered by its network.
d) be entitled to a fair and equitable revenue sharing arrangement with the inter-exchange carrier or such other carriers connected to its basic network.
SEC. 9. Inter-Exchange Carrier. - The number of entities allowed to provide inter-exchange national long distance services may be limited, but as a matter of policy, where it is economically viable, at least two (2) carriers, shall be authorized: Provided, however, That a local exchange carrier shall not be restricted from operating its own inter-exchange carrier service if its viability is dependent thereto. Such inter-exchange carrier shall have the following obligations:
a) It shall interconnect with other networks in the same category and with local exchange carriers or other telecommunications entities, upon application and within a reasonable time period, and under fair and reasonable level of charges, in order that domestic and international long distance services are made possible; and
b) It shall have the right to establish and operate its own tandem switching facilities to which international calls or overseas carriers have to course their messages or signals.
SEC. 10. International Carrier. - Only entities which will provide local exchange services and can demonstrably show technical and financial capability to install and operate an international gateway facility shall be allowed to operate as an international carrier.
The entity so allowed shall be required to produce a firm correspondent or interconnection relationships with major overseas telecommunications authorities or carriers within one (1) year from the grant of the authority.
The international carrier shall also comply with its obligation to provide the local exchange service in unserved or undeserved areas within three (3) years from the grant of the authority as required by existing regulations: Provided, however, That said carriers shall be deemed to have complied with the said obligation in the event it allows an affiliate thereof to assume such obligation and who complies therewith.
Failure to comply with the above obligations shall be a cause to cancel its authority or permit to operate as an international carrier.
SEC. 11. Value-added Service Provider. - Provided that it does not put its own network, a VAS provider need not secure a franchise. A VAS provider shall be allowed to competitively offer its services and/or expertise, and lease or rent telecommunications equipment and facilities necessary to provide such specialized services, in the domestic and/or international market in accordance with network compatibility.
Telecommunications entities may provide VAS, subject to the additional requirements that:
a) prior approval of the Commission is secured to ensure that such VAS offerings are not cross-subsidized from the proceeds of their utility operations;
b) other providers of VAS are not discriminated against in rates nor denied equitable access to their facilities; and
c) separate books of accounts are maintained for the VAS.
SEC. 12. Mobile Radio Services. - In a local telephone exchange area, more than one duly enfranchised provider of mobile radio services, distinct and separate from the local exchange carrier, may be allowed to operate. However, such entities shall secure prior authority from the Commission and, in addition, comply with the conditions imposed on VAS and with the norms on radio frequency spectrum utilization.
The operator of a mobile radio telephone system shall comply with its obligations to provide local exchange service in unserved and undeserved areas in accordance with existing regulations. Failure to comply with this obligation within three (3) years from the grant of the authority shall be a cause to cancel its authority or permit to operate a mobile radio telephone system.
SEC. 13. Radio Paging Services. - Duly enfranchised radio paging services involving either voice or data messages, shall be allowed to compete freely in rates, number of operators, or variety of operating modalities, subject only to the norms on radio frequency spectrum utilization.

ARTICLE V. OTHER SERVICES AND FACILITIES
SEC. 14. Customer Premises Equipment. - Telecommunications subscribers shall be allowed to use within their premises terminal equipment, such as telephone, PABX, facsimile, data, record, message and other special-purpose or multi-function telecommunication terminal equipment intended for such connection: Provided, That the equipment is type-approved by the Commission.
SEC. 15. Radio Frequency Spectrum. - The radio frequency spectrum allocation and assignment shall be subject to periodic review. The use thereof shall be subject to reasonable spectrum user fees. Where demand for specific frequencies exceed availability, the Commission shall hold open tenders for the same and ensure wider access to this limited resource.
ARTICLE VI. FRANCHISE, RATES AND REVENUE DETERMINATION
SEC. 16. Franchise. - No person shall commence or conduct the business of being a public telecommunications entity without first obtaining a franchise.
The Commission, in granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), may impose such conditions as to duration and termination of the privilege, concession, or standard or technical aspects of the equipment, rates, or service, not contrary to the terms of the franchise. In no case, however, shall the CPCN be shorter than five (5) years, nor longer than the life of the franchise. A CPCN expiring at the same time as the franchise shall be deemed to have been renewed for the same term if the franchise itself is also renewed or extended.
Expansion and financing of network and services, utilizing equipment compatible with or homologous to existing or previously approved plant and facilities, in order to service additional demand in the same areas where the previously approved network and services have been installed, shall not require any approval by the Commission.
The upgrading of existing plant and network facilities including the financing thereof, for the purpose of retiring or replacing obsolete or outmoded equipment with state of the art equipment and technology in order to improve the quality or grade of service being rendered to the public within the same areas covered by the existing plant and facilities previously approved, shall likewise not require the approval of the Commission.
The Commission, however, shall not grant a subsequent CPCN for another segment of service or extend the area service coverage of an entity which has failed to satisfactorily comply with its commitments to the Commission to provide a particular service in the original area coverage under an earlier authorization.
SEC. 17. Rates and Tariffs. - The Commission shall establish rates and tariffs which are fair and reasonable and which provide for the economic viability of telecommunications entities and a fair return on their investments considering the prevailing cost of capital in the domestic and international markets.
The Commission shall exempt any specific telecommunications service from its rate or tariff regulations if the service has sufficient competition to ensure fair and reasonable rates or tariffs. The Commission shall, however, retain its residual powers to regulate rates or tariffs when ruinous competition results or when a monopoly or a cartel or combination in restraint of free competition exists and the rates or tariffs are distorted or unable to function freely and the public is adversely affected. In such cases, the Commission shall either establish a floor or ceiling on the rates or tariffs.
SEC. 18. Access Charge/Revenue Sharing. - The access charge/revenue sharing arrangements between all interconnecting carriers shall be negotiated between the parties and the agreement between the parties shall be submitted to the Commission. In the event the parties fail to agree thereon within a reasonable period of time, the dispute shall be submitted to the Commission for resolution.
In adopting or approving an access charge formula or revenue sharing agreement between two or more carriers, particularly, but not limited to a local exchange, interconnecting with a mobile radio, inter-exchange long distance carrier, or international carrier, the Commission shall ensure equity, reciprocity and fairness among the parties concerned. In so approving the rates for interconnection between the telecommunications carriers, the Commission shall take into consideration the costs of the facilities needed to complete the interconnection, the need to provide the cross-subsidy to local exchange carriers to enable them to fulfill the primary national objective of increasing telephone density in the country and assure a rate of return on the total local exchange network investment that is at parity with those earned by other segments of the telecommunications industry: Provided, That international carriers and mobile radio operators which are mandated to provide local exchange services, shall not be exempt from the requirement to provide the cross-subsidy, when they interconnect with the local exchanges of other carriers. Provided, further, That the local exchanges which they will additionally operate shall equally be entitled to the cross-subsidy from other international carriers, mobile radio operators, or inter-exchange carriers interconnecting with them.
SEC. 19. Uniform System of Accounts. - The Commission shall require telecommunications entities to set up a uniform system of accounts which shall be one of the bases in establishing rates and tariffs. Where a single entity spans more than one category of telecommunications service, a separate book of accounts shall be maintained for each category or specialized classification.

ARTICLE VII. RIGHTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS USERS
SEC. 20. Rights of End Users. - The user of telecommunications service shall have the following basic rights:
a) Entitlement of utility service which is non-discriminatory reliable and conforming with minimum standards set by the Commission;
b) Right to be given the first single-line telephone connection or the first party-line connection within two (2) months of application for service, against deposit, or within three (3) months after targeted commencement of service in the barangay concerned per the original schedule of service expansion approved by the Commission, whichever deadline comes later;
c) Regular, timely and accurate billing, courteous and efficient service at utility business offices and by utility company personnel; and
d) Thorough and prompt investigation of, and action upon complaints. The utility shall endeavor to allow complaints to be received over the telephone and shall keep a record of all written or phoned-in complaints.
ARTICLE VIII. TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 21. Public Ownership. - In compliance with the Constitutional mandate to democratize ownership of public utilities, all telecommunications entities with regulated types of services shall make a bonafide public offering through the stock exchanges of at least thirty percent (30%) of its aggregate common stocks within a period of five (5) years from effectivity of this Act or the entity's first start of commercial operations, whichever date is later. The public offering shall comply with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SEC. 22. Privatization of Existing Facilities. - The Department shall, within three (3) years from effectivity of this Act, privatize all telecommunications facilities currently owned and/or operated by the government for public use, plus those facilities currently being planned under various bilateral funding arrangements. Unless otherwise authorized by law, privatization of telecommunications facilities as well as construction of telephone infrastructure shall be made through public bidding.
SEC. 23. Equality of Treatment in the Telecommunications Industry. - Any advantage, favor, privilege, exemption, or immunity granted under existing franchises, or may hereafter be granted, shall ipso facto become part of previously granted telecommunications franchises and shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the grantees of such franchises: Provided, however, That the foregoing shall neither apply to nor affect provisions of telecommunications franchises concerning territory covered by the franchise, the life span of the franchise, or the type of service authorized by the franchise.
ARTICLE IX. FINAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 24. Transitory Provision. - All telecommunications services deregulated hereby and which are operating at the effectivity of this Act, may continue to have their rates and tariffs approved by the Commission until the end of the calendar year of the effectivity of this Act.
Existing franchises that are not operating or without pending applications for certificates of public convenience at the time of effectivity of this Act are deemed revoked.
All interconnection agreements previously entered into between telecommunications carriers shall remain in full force and effect but the parties shall, within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, review their access charging/revenue sharing formula and submit to the Commission an amendment thereof, if necessary, in order to comply with the guidelines on the access charging/revenue sharing formula contained in Section 18 of this Act.
SEC. 25. Separability Clause. - Any portion or provisions of this Act that may be declared unconstitutional or invalid shall not have the effect of nullifying other portions or provisions hereof as long as such remaining portions or provisions can still subsist and be given effect in their entirely.
SEC. 26. Repealing Clause - All laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and other issuances of parts thereof, which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SEC. 27. Effectivity Clause - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: March 1, 1995
(SGD). FIDEL V. RAMOSPresident of the Philippines

Check this out!

2004-09-28T23:46:00.000+08:00

http://chona.blogspot.com/

May entertainment value din kahit papano..

Hey!

2004-09-28T23:42:00.000+08:00

Musta na?
Ten days akong hindi nakapag-internet!
Grabe..
Glad to be back!

2004-09-24T01:10:00.000+08:00

wala lang

anong nangyari!....

2004-09-23T23:18:00.000+08:00

bakit walang nagpopost dito?.....
sobrang busy na ba talaga tayo?.....
post na ulit kayo dito guyz!.....

100 days

2004-09-21T23:42:00.000+08:00

Peter and Tina are sitting in the park doing nothing, but just gazing into the sky, while all their friends are having fun with their beloved half.

Tina: I'm so b ored. Just wish I have a boyfriend now to spend time with.

Peter: I guess we're the only leftovers. We're the only person who isn't with a date now. (both sigh n silence for a while) ;

Tina: I think I have a good idea. Lets play a game Peter: Eh? What game? & nbsp; Tina: Eem..It's quite simple. You be my boyfriend for 100 days and I'll be your girlfriend for 100 days. what do you think?

Peter: Oookay..Anyway I don't have any plan for the next few months.

Tina: You sound like you aren't looking forward & to it at all. Cheer up. Today will be our first day and our first date. Where should we go?

Peter: What about a movie? I heard that there is a really great movie in theater now.

Tina: Seems like I don't have any better idea than this. Lets move. (went to watch their movies and sent each other home) ;

Day 2:

Peter and Tina went to a concert together, and Peter bought Tina a keychain with a star.

Day 3:

They went shopping together for a friend's birthday present. Share an ice-cream together and hugged each other for the first time.

Day 7:

Peter drove Tina up onto a mountain and they watch the sunset together. When the night came and the moon glowed, they said sat on the grass gazing at the stars together. A meteor passed by. Tina mumbled something.

Day 25:

Spend time at a themepark and got onto rollercoasters, and ate hotdogs and cotton candy. Peter and Tina got in the haunted house and Tina grabbed someone's hand i nstead of Peter's hand by accident. They laughed together for a while.

Day 67:

They drove pass a circus and decided to get in to watch the show. The midget asked Tina to play a part as his assistant in the magic show. Went around to see other entertainments around after the show. Came to a fortune telle r and she just said "Treasure every moment from now on" and a tear rolled down the fortune teller's cheek.

Day 84:

Tina suggested that they go to the beach. The ; beach wasn't so crowded that day. They have their first kiss with each other just as the sun is setting.

Day 99:

They decided to have a simple day and is deciding to have a walk around the city. They sits down onto a b ench.

1:23 pm

Tina: I'm thirsty. Lets rest for a while first.

Peter: Wait here while I go buy some drinks. What would you like?

Tina: Eem...Apple juice will be just fine.

1:43 pm

Tina waiting for about 20 minutes and Peter havent return. Then someone walked up to her. ;
Stranger: Is your name Tina?

Tina: Yes, and may I help you?

Stranger: Justnow down there on the street a drunk driver has crashed into a guy. I think its your friend.

Tina ran over to the spot with the stranger and sees Peter lying on the floor with blood over his face and her apple juice still in his hands. The ambulance came and she went to the hospital with Peter. Tina sat outside the emergency room for five and a half hours. The doctor came out, and he sigh.

11:51 pm

Doctor: I'm s orry, but we did the best we could. He is still breathing now but God would take him away from us very soon. We found this letter inside his pocket.
The doctor hands over the letter to Tina and she ; goes into the room to see Peter. He look weak but peaceful. Tina read the letter and then she burst into tears. Here is what the letter said.

Tina, our 100 days is almost over. I had fun with you during all these days. Although you may be greedy sometimes and less thoughtful, but these all brought happiness into my life. I have realize that you are a really cute girl and blamed myself for never taken the time to knowing that. I have nothing much to ask for, but I just wish that we can extend the day. I want to be your boyfriend forever and wish that you can be beside me all the time. Tina, I love you.

11:58

Tina: (sobbing) Peter. Did you know what was the wish I made on the night there was a meteor. I asked God to let us last forever. We were suppose to last 100 days so Peter! You can't leave me! I LOVE YOU, but can you come back to me now? I love you Peter. I LOVE YOU.
As th e clock struck twelve, Peter's heart stopped beating. It was 100 days.
Tell the guy or girl that you love them before its too late. You never know whats going to happen tomorrow. You never know who will be leaving you and never return.

ATTENTION!!!!!

2004-09-19T20:31:00.000+08:00

sa lahat po ng ece students.... good luck sa exams natin this week. sana pasado lahat...

wala lang ulit...

2004-09-17T23:21:00.000+08:00

Hi guyz!...
andito na naman ako..
kung sino man ang nag hahack
sa Pc ko.. tigilan nyo na ako...
masisira na pc ko sa kafoformat....
nakakapagod din mag format
na magformat....
sino nga pala may installer ng photoshop 7?..
pahiram naman ako....
kahit version 6 ok na....
ang hirap kc gamitin ng version 6..
joey,
di ko pa naaayos yung site ko...
nawala kasi yung cookies ko ng bravenet...
pero inaayos ko na yung cokies ko....
sabihin ko na lang ulit sayo
kapag naayos ko na....
till next time ulit guyz!....
Bye for now!....

"baywatch nightmare"

2004-09-17T10:43:00.000+08:00

http://www.geocities.com/jhowee_dharkblue/bean.jpg">

NEW Computer Updates..

2004-09-15T22:38:00.001+08:00

Post naman kayo!!

NEW Computer Updates..

2004-09-15T22:38:00.000+08:00

Post naman kayo!!

Sa mga nag-alala...

2004-09-15T09:24:00.000+08:00

O.K. lang ako...
wala namang problema...
naiyak lang
kasi may umalis
at may iniwan...

wala lang...

2004-09-12T22:59:00.000+08:00

hi guyz!.
post naman kayo ulit d2 guyz....
post nyo dito yung mga
picz na nakuha nyo nung assembly natin...
nag post na si sir ng mga picz
na nacapture nya last aeces assembly...
post kayo ng madalas pra makaroon
kayo ng account sa gmail....

ECE Assembly..

2004-09-12T21:14:00.001+08:00

OK lang ako..
Eto yung mga pics..

kulang nalang beer sa mesa..

masaya ba? buti pa kayo..

sweet!

tingin tribu!

nakangiti kunyari..

pot-pot! pot-pot!

ganda, tingin!

ano gawa nyo?

ay, awarding na..

best team(orange).. best player(adaya-->kulit!)..

anlakas kumain..

congrats!

Pinilit ko makarating.. Nag taxi pa ako.. Sinuhulan ko pa yung driver ng hotdog (merienda ko sana yun) para bilisan ang byahe.. Tapos aabutan mo ganun..

Para sa ECE students yan.. Congrats..

P.S. Buti nalang hindi nyo nakalimutan pasalamatan yung mga dapat nyong pasalamatan..

ECE Assembly..

2004-09-12T21:14:00.000+08:00

OK lang ako..
Eto yung mga pics..

OK lang ako..

masaya ba? buti pa kayo..

sweet!

tingin tribu!

Wat happend?

2004-09-11T22:49:00.000+08:00

Bakit walang laman itong blog natin??
POST naman..

Haaay naku nasayang ang sabado ko..
=(

para sa lahat....

2004-09-09T01:52:00.000+08:00

hi guyz!.
lahat ng gustong
sumali dito sa CCP-ECE info and messgae board,
sign up na lang kayo for an account sa bloggger.com/start....
then painvite kayo kay sir devera or YM nyo na lang ako sa
flyerz_21..
administrator na din kasi ako dito....
kung may mga tanong nga pala kayo dito....
makikita niyo naman ako sa school...
pakalat kalat lang ako dun...
or tanong nyo na lang
kay sir kasi baka di ko kayo masagot...
hehehe!...yun lang....
bye!....

2004-09-07T13:24:00.000+08:00

classm8's im doing my personal HP! ill finish it soon! http://www.neozero.cjb.net

gmail account..

2004-09-07T07:29:00.000+08:00

beta pa rin kasi yung gmail kaya binibigay lang sya sa mga madalas gumamit ng blogger.. Lalabas nalang yun pag nag-log ka sa blogger.com
Gud day!
Spread the word para dumami members natin dito../

2004-09-05T14:52:00.000+08:00

tanong lang.....

2004-09-05T13:41:00.000+08:00

pano sir magkakaroon ng gmail account?......

GREETINGS!.......

2004-09-03T01:41:00.000+08:00

hi guyz!........

binabati ko nga pala lahat ng members dito

hi sa inyong lahat lalong alo na kay sir....

jhonsen,

di ko pa nga ala nasisimulan yung site ng AECES

wala pa kong time gumawa nun....

pakalat nyo lang ito para dumami pa tayo dito....

Hi din sa TRIBU barkada....

add na din kayo d2...

its me again...
hehehe!....

ok ba?....

2004-09-03T00:28:00.000+08:00

OK LANG BA GUYZ NA NAGLAGAY AKO NG SOUNDS?.....

neo-lightblew for zerosystems art

2004-09-02T13:40:00.000+08:00

neo-lightblew for zerosystems art

2004-09-02T13:28:00.000+08:00

KAKATUWA

2004-09-02T10:16:00.000+08:00

Sana
na
ba
sir
dumami
pa
ang
members
ng
Blogger!!! Send your email add kay Jordan para maiadd nya kayo or just visit the site!!!

ang saya saya!!!

2004-09-02T00:26:00.000+08:00

Lalo n sa atin Joey!

God Is Good All the Time!

kamusta na din kayo Joey, julie at mark?

higit sa lahat magaganda at pogi!

Magagaling kayo at matatalino pa!

kamusta na sa mga tiga tribu?

Member na din po ako!

Sir thanks po!

wala lang! may angal?

I'm Dennis Eloso!!!

Hi!!!

subok po...

2004-09-01T12:08:00.000+08:00

TAMA
KAYA
ITO
sir
?thanks anyways!!!

Longhorn!

2004-09-01T01:45:00.000+08:00

Eto yung ichura ng desktop ng LONGHORN..

Ang bata.. NagpaKODAK sa McDO!

2004-09-01T01:28:00.000+08:00

Click para lumaki.. (Ang picture!)

New OS from microsoft

2004-09-01T01:06:00.000+08:00

What's next after WinXP?
May pagkakakitaan nanaman ang Microsoft..

"LONGHORN" and brand..
Out sa Q4 2005..

welcome!!!

2004-09-01T00:58:00.000+08:00

sa mga bagong salta sa blogger natin..
everyday dapat may post kayo..
he he he requirement yan..

For RO adiks-

2004-08-31T10:32:00.000+08:00

Great news for Ragnarok adiks! a new independent, nonprofit and very nice guys developed a community for a free RO access and their running a athena test server so catch it for free but unfortunately you half to download the sakray client of a 600 MB thats very long time to Download even for DSL users pare hanggang ngayon nagdownload parin ako! sigh..heres the link http://aero.nu

yahoo ID: fvictorx

2004-08-31T07:26:00.000+08:00

Post nyo rin mga yahoo ID nyo..
See you around!
Yung gusto magpa-invite, admin na si Jordan nitong site..
Sa kanya na kayo magpa invite..
(Sya kasi madalas mag-online)

Abangan nyo yung top10 sa Datacomm!

2004-08-30T23:40:00.000+08:00

malapit ko nang i-post!

DOTC Secretary: Profile

2004-08-26T22:52:00.000+08:00

The Honorable LEANDRO RAMOS MENDOZA
SecretaryDepartment of Transportation and Communications

Secretary LEANDRO R MENDOZA is a professional police officer, a noted management practitioner and an inspiring leader. His various professional experiences from his stint as a second lieutenant in the regular force of the Philippine Constabulary up until his appointment as Executive Director of the Philippines Center on Transnational Crime have prepared him to assume the role of the top law enforcer in the country. He was promoted to the rank of Police Director General on 16 Mar 2001. On July 3, 2002, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed PDG Leandro R. Mendoza as the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

03 July 2002 to dateSecretary, Department of Transportation and Communications
16 Mar 2001 to
03 July 2002 Chief, Philippine National Police
Jan 2001-16 Mar 2001Acting Chief, Philippine National Police
1999 – Jan 2001Executive Director, Philippine Center on Transnational Crime
1998 – 1999President, Philippine Military Academy Alumni Association, Inc (PMAAAI)
1998 – PresentChairman, Association of Chief of Police of the Philippines Incorporated (ACCPI)
1997 – PresentVice Chairman, PSMBFI
1997 – 1998 Deputy Chief, PNP for Administration
1995 – 1996 Chief Directorial Staff
1995 – 1996 Regional Director, National Capital Region Center (NCRC)
1994 – 1995 Regional Director, Regional Command 4 (RECOM 4)
1993 – 1994Director, Directorate for Intelligence
1992 – 1993Deputy Director, Directorate for Intelligence
1991 – 1992Chief Directorial Staff, ARMM
Feb ‘91 – Apr ‘91TF Commander, Mina de Oro Task Force
1990 –1991Chief of Staff, Regional Command 4 (RECOM 4)
May ‘89 – May ‘90Provincial Commander, Pangasinan
May ’85 – Mar ‘89Provincial Commander, Bulacan
May ’85 – May ’86Provincial Commander, Rizal
1985 – 1986Sector Commander, Eastern Sector, PCM
Jun ‘80 – Sep ‘84Provincial Commander, PS Cebu
1979 – 1980Deputy Commander, South Sector PC METROCOM
1975 – 1979Commanding Officer, Investigation Unit, METROCOM
1974 – 1975Deputy Commander, Inves & Intel Unit, METROCOM
1972 – 1974Chief, Special Opns Br, MPIS
1970 – 1972Commanding Officer, 3rd METROCOM Patrol Company
Pltn Ldr/Mess & Agen Offr, 2nd Special Forces Coy
EDUCATION
Philippine Military Academy – Bachelor of Science
UP – Visayas, Cebu City – MA in Public Management
AFPCGSC, Ft. Bonifacio, MM – General Staff Course
AWARDS / DECORATIONS / CITATIONS
3 PNP Distinguished Service Medal
PNP Commendation Medal
Medalya ng Kasanayan (PNP Efficiency Medal)
Distinguished Conduct Star
5 Distinguished Service Medal
Bronze Cross Medal
Special Service Medal
Medalya ng Papuri
Chief of Staff Award for Graduating # 1 at GSC
Certificate of Academic Excellence for Obtaining a Grade of 95.59 in GSC Class #21
University Scholar (University of the Philippines)
Airborne Wings
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao Campaign Ribbons
Kagitingan Badge
5 Military Commendation Medal
8 Military Merit Medal
2 Military Merit Medal w/ Spearhead Device
Plaque of Merit & Letters of Commendation from Distinguished Personalities and Socio-Civic Organizations

Jordan's SITE

2004-08-26T22:11:00.000+08:00

visit nyo site ni jordan...
may link sa gilid..

ccp-ece5

2004-08-25T01:45:00.000+08:00

C
C
P

E
C
E

5

RULES

ok na.....

2004-08-25T01:26:00.000+08:00

OK na po sir.....

Thanx nga po pala sa invite....

sali na ko dito guyz ha?.....

makulit ba ko?.....

try this guyz!....

2004-08-25T00:47:00.000+08:00

try lang

2004-08-24T23:13:00.000+08:00

Rules of Kissing Correctly

2004-08-24T11:01:00.000+08:00

1) When kissing, make sure your eyes are
closed
(you can peek a little, but nothing more!).

2! ) When you are kissing someone, make
sure it
is
not
someone else's b/f or g/f!

3) You may NOT eat pizza anytime before you
make
out.

4) If a person is a bad kisser, you may NOT
stop
and
leave at anytime-it's rude.

5) A person with braces may not kiss another
person who has them.

6) When kissing, make sure your hands are
where
they're allowed (they can wander sometimes,
and
some people don't like that).

7) NEVER ask someone if they're a good
kisser-
you
will either get a wrong answer, or the truth
will
hurt you.
8) If you were expecting more than kissing,
don't
complain-you will get less the next time.

9) Kissing more than one 1 person in a! day can
result in you not being allowed to kiss one of
those people anymore.

10) Don't kiss someone for the first time while
you are laying in their bed.

Did you know ???

2004-08-21T23:59:00.000+08:00

Did you know that when you envy someone, it's because you really like that person?

Did you know that those who appear to be very strong in heart, are real weak and most succeptible?

Did you know that those who spend their time protecting others are the ones that really need some one to protect them?

Did you know that the three most difficult things to say are :
"I love you", "Sorry" and "help me". The people who say these are actually in need of them or really feel them, and are the ones you really need to treasure, because they have said them.

Did you know that people who occupy themselves by keeping others company or helping others are the ones that actually need your company and help?

Did you know that those who dress in red are more confident in themselves?

Did you know that those who dress in yellow are those that enjoy their beauty?

Did you know that those who dress in black, are those who want to be unnoticed and need your help and understanding?

Did you know that when you help someone, the help is returned in two folds?

Did you know that those who need more of you are those that don't mention it to you?

Did you know that it's easier to say what you feel in writing than saying it to someone in the face? But did you know that it has more value when you say it to their face?

Did you know that what is most difficult for you to say or do is much more valuable than anything that is valuable that you can buy with money?

Did you know that if you ask for something in faith, your wishes are granted?

Did you know that you can make your dreams come true, like falling in love, becoming rich, staying healthy, if you ask for it by faith, and if you really knew, you'd be surprised by what you could do. But don't believe everything I tell you, until you try it for yourself , if you know someone that is in need of something that I mentioned, and you know that you can help, you'll see that it will be returned in two-fold .

DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD ALWAYS COUNT ON ME???... THAT THE MOMENT, TIME AND PLACE THAT YOU NEED ME, CALL ME, I WILL BE THERE WITH YOU !!!!!

"One day, we will change the world...or we are already changing it ".

THE BALL IS NOW IN YOUR COURT... If the world were to end in 24 hours, all the phone lines, chat rooms and e-mails will be saturated from people sending messages to others, saying: "I regret having made you feel bad", "Pardon me", "I love you", "I hold you in high esteem", take good care of yourself" and sometimes "I have always loved you, only I never told you".

Today, the ball of FRIENDSHIP is in your court, send this to those who truly are your friends (including me if I am one). Also, do not feel bad if no one sends this back to you in the end, you'll find out that you'll get to keep the ball for other people want more ... Ok, this is what you have to do...: Send to ALL your FRIENDS (email)! But you have to DO THIS within an hour after you read this blog! Now..... MAKE 1 WISH!!!!!! Are you making it????

Make it now, It's your last chance!!

cute nya nho...gf ko yan!

2004-08-21T17:09:00.000+08:00

di cya handa sa camera, STOLEN SHOT...sabi ni sir, di raw cya nahawa....! cnong may sakit? baka kayong mga nagbabasa nito...! yari kayo sa akin, abangan niyo yung mga susunod na post ko.....-janzhen

sir sa GMAIL po!!!

2004-08-19T18:28:00.000+08:00

sir invite nyo po ako sa gmail... di ba sa blogger yung invite nyo....? eh nandun na po ako....

Worm.SymbOS.Cabir.a

2004-08-19T17:41:00.000+08:00

Cabir is the first network worm capable of spreading via Bluetooth; it infects mobile phones which run Symbian OS.

A wide range of phones from a number of manufacturers use this technology. It is clear that Nokia 3650, 7650 and N-Gage phones can all be infected by Cabir. However, any handset running Symbian OS is potentially vulnerable to infection.

The list below shows handsets running this operating system. The list is taken from the Symbian site.

Handsets
Already on the market
To be released in the near future
FOMA F2051
FOMA F2102V
FOMA F900i
Motorola A920
Motorola A925
Nokia 3650/3600
Nokia 3660/3620
Nokia 6600
Nokia 7610
Nokia 7650
Nokia 9210 Communicators
Nokia 9290 Communicator
Nokia N-Gage
Nokia N-Gage QD
Sendo X
Siemens SX1
Sony Ericsson P800
Sony Ericsson P900
BenQ P30
FOMA F900iT
Motorola A1000
Nokia 6260
Nokia 6620
Nokia 6630
Nokia 7700
Nokia 9500
Panasonic X700
Samsung SGH-D710

Smartphones and communicators
Ericsson R380 World Smartphone
Ericsson R380e Smartphone
Ericsson R380sc Smartphone
Psion 618C and 618S
Psion Revo and Revo Plus
Psion Series 5mx
Psion Series 7 and netBook

There are currently two versions of this worm. They are identical, except that one version, when displaying a Window Alert text, will include the text line VZ/29a.

The worm itself is an SIS format file, called caribe.sis, of 15092 bytes in size (the second version is 15104 bytes in size)

This file contains three objects:

caribe.app: 11932 bytes/ 11944 bytes in size
flo.mdl: 2544 bytes in size
caribe.rsc: 44 bytes in size

Installation
When launched, the worm displays a message on the screen: either 'Caribe' or 'Caribe - VZ/29a'.

It then installs itself to the following directories:

Ó:\system\apps\caribe\caribe.app
Ó:\system\apps\caribe\flo.mdl
Ó:\system\apps\caribe\caribe.rsc

C:\SYSTEM\SYMBIANSECUREDATA\CARIBESECURITYMANAGER\CARIBE.SIS
C:\SYSTEM\SYMBIANSECUREDATA\CARIBESECURITYMANAGER\CARIBE.APP
C:\SYSTEM\SYMBIANSECUREDATA\CARIBESECURITYMANAGER\CARIBE.RSC
C:\SYSTEM\RECOGS\FLO.MDL

The directory SYMBIANSECUREDATA which the worm creates is hidden and cannot be seen by the user of the infected telephone.

Even if the worm file is deleted from the APPS directory, the worm will continue to be active in the system.

Propagation
Each time the infected telephone is switched on, the worm scans the list of active Bluetooth connections. The worm will select the first active connection shown and will attempt to send its main file, caribe.sis, to this device. The device which receives this file will display the following information:

If receipt of the infected file is confirmed, the user will be asked if they wish to lauch the file (the message displayed depends on the model of telephone):

Other
The worm appears not to have any payload apart from propagating. However, the presence of the worm in memory, and the worm's scanning for active Bluetooth devices, may cause infected telephones to function in an unstable manner.

Removal
Kaspersky Labs has developed a utility to remove Cabir.a from infected handsets.

The utility will detect and delete the worm from Nokia 3650 and 6600, and Siemens SX1 handsets. It is also designed to work on Nokia N-Gage and Sony Ericsson P900 handsets, but it has not been tested on these handsets.

The utility can be found on the WAP site wap.kaspersky.com. It can be downloaded either directly from the WAP site or via the Internet by following the link wap.kaspersky.com/downloads/decabir-1.0.sis

How to use the utility:
upload the installation file, decabir.sis, to the handset, and launch it.
choose the Decabir icon in the main menu
if the handset is not infected, the message 'Device is clean' will be displayed.
if the handset is infected, the message 'Cabir has been removed. Please reboot' will be displayed. You should now switch your handset off and on again.

This info is from:
http://www.viruslist.com/eng/viruslist.html?id=1689517

1GB mail space on gmail.com

2004-08-19T17:30:00.000+08:00

Keep on blogging para magkaron kayo ng free account sa gmail..
pag madalas ka kasi gumamit ng blogger service, bibigyan ka nila ng gmail account. Hindi ka kasi pwede mag-sign-up lang basta-basta..
1000MB=1GB space! San ka pa?
Compare mo sa yahoo na 100MB=0.1GB lang ang space..

Yung mga nagmomonitor lang ng site mag-blog na kayo..
To join the blog, dapat invite ko muna kayo..

Email nyo ako sa fvictor.devera@gmail.com para invite ko kayo sa blog, tapos accept nyo invitation tapos pwede na kayong mag-blog..

Log-in lang kayo sa blogger.com tapos sulat na kayo ng blog nyo..
Good luck!

DharkBlue..

2004-08-18T08:13:00.000+08:00

Ayan Jhowee may link ka na sa gilid..
Check nyo!
Napaka ganda!
he he he..
may sariling mundo na si jhowee!

musta?

2004-08-18T08:04:00.000+08:00

post naman kayo!
Raul-- accept mo na invitation ko..

OPTICAL ILLUSION

2004-08-17T10:53:00.000+08:00

Follow the instructions:
1) Relax and concentrate on the 4 small dots in the middle of the picture for about 30-40 seconds.

2) Then, take a look at a wall near you ( any smooth, single coloured surface )

3) You will see a circle of light developing

4) Start blinking your eyes a couple of times and you will see a figure emerging...
5) What do you see?
Who do you see?

try lang!!

2004-08-17T10:48:00.000+08:00

Pls vst this site...

2004-08-16T12:37:00.000+08:00

http://dharkblue.blogspot.com/
dto ko po pinost yung ibang songs na nirequest ninyo.....

KATAWAN MO!

2004-08-12T22:13:00.000+08:00

A cough releases an explosive charge of air that moves at speeds up to 60 mph.

A fetus acquires fingerprints at the age of three months.

A fingernail or toenail takes about 6 months to grow from base to tip.

A healthy individual releases 3.5 oz. of gas in a single flatulent emission, or about 17 oz. in a day.

A human being loses an average of 40 to 100 strands of hair a day.

A person will die from total lack of sleep sooner than from starvation.

Death will occur about 10 days without sleep, while starvation takes a few weeks.

A sneeze can exceed the speed of 100 mph.

According to German researchers, the risk of heart attack is higher on Monday than any other day of the week.

According to the Kinsey Institute, the biggest erect penis on record measures 13 inches. The smallest tops off at 1 3/4 inches.

After spending hours working at a computer display, look at a blank piece of white paper. It will probably appear pink.

An average human drinks about 16, 000 gallons of water in a lifetime.

An average human scalp has 100,000 hairs.

An average person uses the bathroom 6 times per day.

An individual blood cell takes about 60 seconds to make a complete circuit of the body.

Data Communications Students (ECE553)

2004-08-12T21:59:00.000+08:00

join the blog!
send me an email so i can send you an invitation to join the blog..

fvictor.devera@gmail.com

I'm BACK!

2004-08-10T21:25:00.000+08:00

HAy naku! Almost one week kming walang phone service.. Ewan ko ba dyan sa PLDT.. Pero OK na.. Ang mahalaga, nakaka-internet na ako..
Hindi na ako magtyatyaga sa internet "service" ng maganda nating library.. Hehehe.. Syempre kasama na dun yung mga mababait at magagandang librarian like Dorris&Co.. PAno ba naman, sobrang bilis ng computer at yung mouse, ang sarap gamitin..

I'll be over you.....

2004-08-10T16:59:00.000+08:00

I'll Be Over You Lyrics
by Toto

Some people live their dreams
Some people close their eyes
Some people's destiny
Passes by

There are no guarantees
There are no alibis
That's how our love must be
Don't ask why

[Bridge:]
It takes some time
God knows how long
I know that I can forget you

As soon as my heart stops breakin'
Anticipating
As soon as forever is through
I'll be over you

Remembering times gone by
Promises we once made
What are the reasons why
Nothing stays the same

[Bridge:]
There were the nights holding you close
Someday I'll try to forget them
Someday I'll be over you

BY REQUEST OF MA'AM LIWAY

Jhonsen sa kagubatan...

2004-08-09T10:53:00.000+08:00

Isang bata ang dumulog sa kinauukulan
upang ireport ang isang video na nakunan
habang sya ay namamasyal sa kagubatan...
Makikita sa video na ito ay maaring
si Jhonsen at hindi nya ito maitatanggi...

(no animals was harmed during the shot of this video)

LOVE in the CITY theme

2004-08-04T11:48:00.000+08:00

I'll Never Get Over You (getting Over Me)
Expose

I hear you're taking the town again
Having a good time
With all your good time friends
I don't think that you think of me
You're on your own now and I'm alone and free
I know that I should get on with my life
But a life lived without you could never be right

As long as the stars shine down from the heavens
Long as the rivers run to the sea
I'll never get over you getting over me

I try to smile so the hurt wont show
Tell everybody I was glad to see you go
But the tears just won't go away
Loneliness found me, looks like its here to stay
I know that I ought to find someone new
But all I find is myself always thinking of you

As long as the stars shine down from the heavens
Long as the rivers run to the sea
I'll never get over you getting over me

Oh, no matter what I do
Each nights a lifetime to live through
I cant go on like this, I need your touch
You're the only one I'll ever love

And as long as the stars shine down from the heavens
Long as the rivers run to the sea
I'll never get over you getting over me

I'll never get over you getting over
I'll never get over you getting over
I'll never get over you getting over me

duh!

2004-08-01T23:50:00.000+08:00

caffeinerush

Hands To Heaven

2004-08-01T15:42:00.000+08:00

Artist: Christian Bautista
Album: Christian Bautista (2004)

[Intro:]
As I watch you move
Across the moonlit room
There's so much tenderness in your loving
Tomorrow I must leave
The dawn knows no reprieve
God, give me strength when I am leaving

[Refrain:]
So raise your hands to heaven and pray
That we'll be back together someday

[Chorus:]
Tonight I need your sweet caress
Hold me in the darkness
Tonight you calm my restlessness
You relieve my sadness

As we move to embrace
Tears run down your face
I whisper words of love so softly
I can't believe this painIt's driving me insane
Without your touch, life will be lonely

[Refrain:]
[Chorus:] [2x]

[Bridge:]
Morning has come another day
I must pack my bags and say goodbye, goodbye

[Chorus:] [2x]

HAppy Birthday Ria!

2004-08-01T14:20:00.000+08:00

ETo Ang mga nangyari..
(Click para lumaki... ang pictures)

Ang pagkalaki-laking banner ni RIA..

Sa LRT papuntang cubao..
Muntik pa akong masarahan ng pinto..
He he he.. Ang ingay nila.. Sabi ko nga baka nanjanyung librarian na si DORRIS at palabasin kami..

Uuuuy! gutom na!

Daming fud! Kaya hanggang labas, umaawas!
He he he he.. kakagutom!

Pagkatapos kumain.. nagkakahawakan na.. Kaninong kamay kaya ito?
Gross!

NAku! lasingan na..
Konti lang..

Mga Lasing yan!!

Jhonsen! Waaaag! MAhawa!

Syempre may mga nagkaigihan..
Saan ka pa? Hanggang LANGIT ang ngiti!! Ang mata, KUMIKISLAP!
Happy Birthday ria!

MAy pic din ako!

Cute ni Jullie!

May na-miss yung mga hindi sumama...
YUng ibang pic next time nalang!

spiderman wallpapers

2004-08-01T08:39:00.000+08:00

HEY GUYZ CHECK THIS ONE OUT!!!!!
www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" /> www.ImageShack.us" />

were the same!!!

2004-07-30T11:20:00.000+08:00

mund parehas tyo ng case kaso nauna ko magpasa!!! sori na lng!!! una-una lang yan!!! better luck next tym!!!!

AKALA mo LANG!

2004-07-29T22:16:00.000+08:00

THE PREMISE of this article lies on the principle that sometimes, loving a person doesn't mean it has to be romantic and loving a person for the rest of your life doesn't mean you have to end up marrying them. Can a man and a woman just be friends? I'd say yes and they should be.

Hindi dahil kinaibigan ka, liligawan ka na. Not every guy who befriends you has an ulterior motive. Get over yourself. Don't flatter yourself. There is a reason why he befriended you, but don't automatically assume that it's because he wants to be your so-called boyfriend. If this will be the principle you'll follow every time someone asks you to be his friend, you're gonna miss a great deal from the friendship.

Hindi dahil mabait sa iyo, nililigawan ka na. There are people who are naturally sweet and kind. There are people who are innately good and no matter how wicked you seem, they just find it so easy to be kind to you. It doesn't mean he is courting you. Don't put yourself through unnecessary stress trying to figure out if he's courting you or not. Because I think if he is, you won't have to guess, you'll know and you'll be very certain about it.

Hindi dahil he talks to you a lot, he loves you na. You don't befriend a person if you absolutely abhor him, right? Chances are you make sense when he talks to you, or you're probably very patient listening to him. The two of you probably connect on some level but why does it always have to be assumed to be romantic? Being two intelligent, mature human beings, you need to accept that it's nice to share a cup of coffee over a stimulating conversation, and that you don't have to automatically put romantic connotation to it. Relieve yourself of the pressure. It's just coffee and a shared interest.

Hindi dahil cute ang friend mo, crush/love mo na siya. This is the most amusing thing that hit me lately. People always assume that because your friend is cute or should I say, hot (because cute is a word you describe your high school crush while hot is a word you use to describe a hunk), "lakas amats mo na for repapips!" Let me just say this, at least from my own personal experience, I'm just nearsighted, I haven't gone blind. I can still appreciate God's creation! However, there will always be weird things, crazy things, stupid things that will keep you, believe me, from having a crush on him. First of all, you'd know his history with women, enough to judge what's good for you. Second, don't you just hate it when a guy who's absolutely always put together, who looks intelligent enough pronounces the word country as "kawntri" and the word mango as "meynggo." Call me crazy for judging a person just because he can't pronounce these words right. I ad! mit, I'm crazy.

Hindi dahil you hang out with each other most of the time, you'd end up being boyfriend-girlfriend. Self-explanatory... There are a thousand, no million different reasons why things don't always turn out that way. There is no one proven formula. For all we know, the reason why he likes hanging out with you is because he likes getting kikay tips from you. He probably plans on being kikay himself and he needs a mentor.

A dinner with a guy friend does not necessarily mean equate to a date. Especially if you're paying for your share no. Hello? Three things to consider: the place, the topic and how the two of you actually planned to meet. First, how it was planned. If it were a date expect that he would ask you out at least three days before the actual date to give you some lead time, to give you the notion that you are not just a filler on his schedule. Second, the place. If it were a real date, the both of you would want real food and a place where you could really talk things through. Don't go out with a guy to a movie on Friday night if you're really serious about him. Going to a movie is more like treating him like a "filler" just because you had nothing to do on a Friday night so you might as well go out. Topic. Ha! You wouldn't be talking about chikang artista, chikang opisina or argue if the one girl's boobs are real or not. You would be probably talking abo! ut sensible, quite personal stuff.

I therefore conclude that platonic relationships are never complicated; people just have tendencies to complicate them.

HAngo lang..

We'll Always Be Friends

2004-07-29T22:10:00.000+08:00

Together, we have seen many changes in our lives and the world since we first became friends. But somehow, even with all that has happened, our friendship hasn't changed, except to grow stronger.

Feeling close to another is such a special feeling and adds so much to life... no wonder your friendship means so much to me!

When I stop to think about it, the closeness we share is right up there with the things I value most in life. Just being together always means the start of good times... thought-provoking times... and even provoking times! (But isn't that the way it should be?)

If we couldn't talk things over and make things right, we never would have made it through these changing times, remaining the good friends we are.

There aren't many people I could say this to, but I can say to you--if there's ever anything I can do to boost you up or help you out or get you through, I'll be there. And if you simply want me to be with you to share a joyful moment... nothing could make me happier.

We've been through so many changes... some of them for the good. Others have been difficult. But through it all we've known we could always count on each other!

That's why I feel so good about the times we'll share in days to come...positive about life and all the happiness it can hold. And I truly know in my heart, through all of life's changes...

We'll always be friends!

UGALING ASAL

2004-07-29T21:58:00.000+08:00

This would give you guides on how to control your emotions
towards your better-half, friends, officemates and all the people around you.......

The 4 rules of practicing "ugaling langit-ugaling kaaya-aya"..

1. Ang naunang magalit ang may karapatang magalit...
Pag naunahan ka ng galit nya...tahimik ka na lng muna...

2. Walang taong nag-aaway mag-isa...
Pag di kayo sumagot or pumatol..titigil din daw ang taong nakikipag away sa inyo...

3.Ang taong galit, "Bingi"
if someone is angry...wala daw pinakikinggan so dont try to explain and fight back
coz di ka nya iintindihin dahil wala shang naririnig kundi ang sarili nya...

4. Ang taong galit..abnoy...
according sa pastor, biblical daw ito...coz. the Lord said when He was
crucified..."Father, patawarin mo sila dahil hindi nila alam ang
kanilang ginagawa"...modern term for these kind of people are abnoys...
..so you better not get angry para wag ka matawag na abnoy...hehehe

You should also know and realize that the persons who
make your day bad are jewels...bec you need them for
you to mature...hanggat andyan daw sila at kinaiinisan
mo..ibig sabihin immature ka pa din...God will not
take away those people..its for you to take away your
bad feelings towards them... you'll know na mature ka
na pag dumating yung time na di ka na
naiinis sa mga taong ito bec you have learned to
accept them and to have patience with them...

Good day !

Mahal mo na ba?

2004-07-29T12:16:00.000+08:00

hmmm.... love na nga ba??!!

Message: para sa mga taong nanliligaw, nagbabalak manligaw, nililigawan, naliligaw, nag-iintay maligawan at nagbabalak lumagay sa magulo..........

ang love ay hindi minamadali...
hindi pinipilit..
at lalong hindi kina-career...aray ko

unang-una...
PAANO MO BA NASABING MAHAL MO NA
SIYA???...

dahil ba natutuwa ka sa kanya???...
o kaya naman naaaliw ka???...
naswee-sweetan ka ba ng sobra sa kanya???...
kinikilig ka ba pag nakikita mo siya???...
at nahi-high kapag naririnig mo na ang boses niya???...

eh teka muna...
baka naman infatuated ka lang....
o kaya naman kagaya nga ng sagot mo...

BAKA naaaliw ka lang...dahil kakaiba siya...
may spark na hindi mo maintindihan... tsk!!!...
ang saklap nyan!...

pangalawa...
GAANO MO NA BA SIYA KAKILALA???...
madali ba siyang mapikon???...
pano ba siya mabadtrip???...
madali bang mahalata na may topak siya???...
ano bang suot niya pag nasa bahay siya???...
shorts ba o pantalon???...
nakasando ba siya o naka-t-shirt lang???...
matagal ba siyang maligo???....
kumakain ba siya ng vegetables???...
tamad ba siya???...
mas gusto ba niyang manood ng tv kaysa magbasa ng libro???...
nagpe-play station ba siya???...
tatlo ba ang pamangkin niyang lalaki???...
makukulit ba yung mga kamag-anak niya???...
green ba ang kulay ng gate ng bahay nila???...
sa village ba siya nakatira???...
may sakayan ba ng jeep na malapit sa kanila???...
nagsisimba ba siya linggo-linggo???...
kasama ba yung pamilya niya???...
at nagdadasal ba siya bago matulog???...

in short...
alam mo na nga ba???...
ang mga bagay-bagay...
ang mga simpleng bagay tungkol sa kanya...
na nagdedetermine ng sarili niya...
as in kung sino ba talaga SIYA...

pangatlo...

KAYA MO BA SIYANG TANGGAPIN???... as in TANGGAPIN ng buong-buo...

sa lahat ng trip niya sa buhay...
sa lahat ng katopakan niya...
sa lahat ng pag-iinarte at pag-dadrama niya...
sa lahat ng kasalanang nagawa, ginawa, at gagawin pa lang niya...
sa lahat ng naiisip niya...
sa lahat ng sasabihin niya...
sa kilos niya...
sa pananamit pa pala niya...
sa pagsasalita...
sa pananaw niya sa buhay...
sa pagtrato niya sa tao...
sa lifestyle niya...
sa uri ng pamilyang meron siya...
sa uri ng kaibigang kasa- kasama niya...
sa style niya pagdating sa love...
sa kasweetan niyang natural...
sa paglalambing niya...
sa tawa niyang pagkalakas-lakas...
sa manners niya...
sa bisyo niya kung meron man...
sa mga pang-aasar niya sayo...
sa style niya pagdating sa pagsolve ng problema...
sa problemang maaari ka ring masama...

pang-apat...
KAYA MO BANG MAGING TOTOO???...

kaya mo bang makita yung sarili mo... na kasama pa rin siya ha...
sa isang sitwasyong pag naisip mo eh... mapapaiyak ka na lang sa sakit...
nang dahil din sa kanya???...

kaya mo bang magmukhang tanga... as in umiyak ng dahil sa kababawan... ibuhos ang mga nararamdaman mo... kahit na puro kababawan nga lang naman... as in kahit sa harapan niya???...

kaya mo bang maging barubal pag kasama mo siya???... yung tipo bang wala ka ng pakielam... mawala man ang manners mo... na wala ka naman talaga...

in short...

KAYA MO BANG MAGING IKAW KAPAG KASAMA MO NA SIYA???...

yung tipong hindi ka nahihiyang ipakita kung sino ka talaga...dahil alam mong...

HINDI MO LANG SIYA TANGGAP... TANGGAP KA RIN NIYA...

BUONG-BUO RIN...

MGA TAO!!!...
tama na kasi ang trip...
tama na ang pagmamadali...
oo masarap ngang mainvolve sa isang tao...
pero diba mas masarap yun...

LALO NA KUNG ALAM MONG TOTOO YUNG
NARARAMDAMAN MO....

kaya dapat, hinde tayo nagpapabulag sa akala nating LOVE....
mag antay na lang tayo.... wag natin unahan.... for all we know, nde pa pala cya ang para sa atin......

pero pag nasagot mo lahat ng nasa taas....
baka nga mahal mo na cya...

research 2 post ko d2 ksi ayaw send email nyo

2004-07-29T12:05:00.000+08:00

G.R. No. 144109. February 17, 2003]
ASSOCIATED COMMUNICATIONS & WIRELESS SERVICES – UNITED BROADCASTING NETWORKS, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
For many years now, there has been a “pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the broadcast industry brought about by conflicting laws, decrees, executive orders and other pronouncements promulgated during the Martial Law regime.”[1] The question that has taken a long life is whether the operation of a radio or television station requires a congressional franchise. The Court shall now lay to rest the issue.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Court of Appeals’ January 31, 2000 decision and February 21, 2000 resolution affirming the January 13, 1999 decision of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC for brevity).
First, the facts.
On November 11, 1931, Act No. 3846, entitled “An Act Providing for the Regulation of Radio Stations and Radio Communications in the Philippines and for Other Purposes,” was enacted. Sec. 1 of the law reads, viz:
“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines...”
Pursuant to the above provision, Congress enacted in 1965 R.A. No. 4551, entitled “An Act Granting Marcos J. Villaverde, Jr. and Winfred E. Villaverde a Franchise to Construct, Install, Maintain and Operate Public Radiotelephone and Radiotelegraph Coastal Stations, and Public Fixed and Public Based and Land Mobile Stations within the Philippines for the Reception and Transmission of Radiotelephone and Radiotelegraph for Domestic Communications and Provincial Telephone Systems in Certain Provinces.” It gave the grantees a 50-year franchise.[2] In 1969, the franchise was transferred to petitioner Associated Communications & Wireless Services – United Broadcasting Network, Inc. (ACWS for brevity) through Congress’ Concurrent Resolution No. 58.[3] Petitioner ACWS then engaged in the installation and operation of several radio stations around the country.
In 1974, P.D. No. 576-A, “Regulating the Ownership and Operation of Radio and Television Stations and for other Purposes” was issued, with the following pertinent provisions on franchise of radio and television broadcasting systems:
“Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment.
x x x              x x x                 x x x
Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting system; Provided, however, that any conflict over, or disagreement with a decision of the aforementioned authorities may be appealed finally to the Office of the President within fifteen days from the date the decision is received by the party in interest.”
A few years later or in 1979, E.O. No. 546[4] was issued. It integrated the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Integrated Reorganization Plan of 1972 into the NTC. Among the powers vested in the NTC under Sec. 15 of E.O. No. 546 are the following:
“a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities;
x x x            x x x                 x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . ”
Upon termination of petitioner’s franchise on December 31, 1981 pursuant to P.D. No. 576-A, it continued operating its radio stations under permits granted by the NTC.
As these presidential issuances relating to the radio and television broadcasting industry brought about confusion as to whether the NTC could issue permits to radio and television broadcast stations without legislative franchise, the NTC sought the opinion of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the matter. On June 20, 1991, the DOJ rendered Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991, viz:
“We believe that under P.D. No. 576-A dated November 11, 1974 and prior to the issuance of E.O No. 546 dated July 23, 1979, the NTC, then Board of Communications, had no authority to issue permits or authorizations to operate radio and television broadcasting systems without a franchise first being obtained pursuant to Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended. A close reading of the provisions of Sections 1 and 6 of P.D. No. 576-A, supra, does not reveal any indication of a legislative intent to do away with the franchising requirement under Section 1 of Act No. 3846. In fact, a mere reading of Section 1 would readily indicate that a franchise was necessary for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems as it expressly provided that no such franchise may be obtained unless the radio station or television channel has ‘sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment.’
It is believed that the termination of all franchises granted for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems effective December 31, 1981 and the vesting of the power to authorize the operation of any radio or television station upon the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and their successors under Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A does not necessarily imply the abrogation of the requirement of obtaining a franchise under Section 1 of Act No. 3846, as amended, in the absence of a clear provision in P.D. No. 576-A providing to this effect.
It should be noted that under Act No. 3846, as amended, a person, firm or entity desiring to operate a radio broadcasting station must obtain the following: (a) a franchise from Congress (Sec. 1); (b) a permit to construct or install a station from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry (Sec. 2); and (c) a license to operate the station also from the Secretary of Commerce and Industry (id.). The franchise is the privilege granted by the State through its legislative body and is subject to regulation by the State itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies (RCPI vs. NTC, 150 SCRA 450). The permit and license are the administrative authorizations issued by the administrative agency in the exercise of regulation. It is clear that what was transferred to the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Commerce and Industry under Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A was merely the regulatory powers vested solely in the Secretary of Commerce and Industry under Section 2 of Act No. 3846, as amended. The franchising authority was retained by the then incumbent President as repository of legislative power under Martial Law, as is clearly indicated in the first WHEREAS clause of P.D. No. 576-A to wit:
‘WHEREAS, the President of the Philippines is empowered under the Constitution to review and approve franchises for public utilities.’
Of course, under the Constitution, said power (the power to review and approve franchises), belongs to the lawmaking body (Sec. 5, Art. XIV, 1973 Constitution; Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution).
The corollary question to be resolved is: Has E.O. No 546 (which is a law issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1416, as amended by P.D. No. 1771, granting the then President continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the national government) modified the franchising and licensing arrangement for radio and television broadcasting systems under P.D. No. 576-A?
We believe so.
E.O. No. 546 integrated the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Bureau into a single entity known as the NTC (See Sec. 14), and vested the new body with broad powers, among them, the power to issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities, including radio and televisions broadcasting systems and the power to grant permits for the use of radio frequencies (Sec. 14[a] and [c], supra). Additionally, NTC was vested with broad rule making authority ‘to encourage a larger and more effective use of communications, radio and television broadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private entities in these activities whenever the Commission finds it reasonably feasible’ (Sec. 15[f]).
In the recent case of Albano vs. Reyes (175 SCRA 264), the Supreme Court held that ‘franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate.’ Administrative agencies may be empowered by law ‘to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities.’ The Supreme Court stated that the provision in the Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 11) ‘that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress, does not necessarily imply . . . that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities.’
We believe that E.O. No. 546 is one law which authorizes an administrative agency, the NTC, to issue authorizations for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems without need of a prior franchise issued by Congress.
Based on all the foregoing, we hold the view that NTC is empowered under E.O. No. 546 to issue authorization and permits to operate radio and television broadcasting system.”[5]
However, on May 3, 1994, the NTC, the Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas of which petitioner is a member of good standing, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that requires a congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The MOU states, viz:
“WHEREAS, under the provisions of Section 1 of Act No. 3846 (Radio Laws of the Philippines, as amended), only radio and television broadcast stations with legislative franchise are authorized to operate.
WHEREAS, Executive Order No. 546, which created the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and abolished the Board of Communications (BOC) and the Telecommunications Control Bureau (TCB), and integrated the functions and prerogative of the latter two agencies into the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC);
WHEREAS, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is authorized to issue certificate of public convenience for the operation of radio and television broadcast stations;
WHEREAS, there is a pervading confusion in the state of affairs of the broadcast industry brought about by conflicting laws, decrees, executive orders and other pronouncements promulgated during the Martial Law regime, the parties in their common desire to rationalize the broadcast industry, promote the interest of public welfare, avoid a vacuum in the delivery of broadcast services, and foremost to better serve the ends of press freedom, the parties hereto have agreed as follows:
‘The NTC shall continue to issue and grant permits or authorizations to operate radio and television broadcast stations within their mandate under Section 15 of Executive Order No. 546, provided that such temporary permits or authorization to operate shall be valid for two (2) years within which the permittee shall be required to file an application for legislative franchise with Congress not later than December 31, 1994; provided finally, that if the permittee of the temporary permit or authorization to operate fails to secure the legislative franchise with Congress within this period, the NTC shall not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further.’”[6]
Prior to the December 31, 1994 deadline set by the MOU, petitioner filed with Congress an application for a franchise on December 20, 1994. Pending its approval, the NTC issued to petitioner a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate a television station via Channel 25 of the UHF Band from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997.[7] In 1996, the NTC authorized petitioner to increase the power output of Channel 25 from 1.0 kilowatt to 25 kilowatts after finding it financially and technically capable;[8] it also granted petitioner a permit to purchase radio transmitters/transceivers for use in its television Channel 25 broadcasting.[9] Shortly before the expiration of its temporary permit, petitioner applied for its renewal on May 14, 1997.[10]
On October 28, 1997, the House Committee on Legislative Franchises of Congress replied to an inquiry of the NTC’s Broadcast Division Chief regarding the franchise application of ACWS filed on December 20, 1994. The Committee certified that petitioner’s franchise application was not deliberated on by the 9th Congress because petitioner failed to submit the required supporting documents. In the next Congress, petitioner did not re-file its application.[11]
The following month or on November 17, 1997, the NTC’s Broadcast Service Department wrote to petitioner ordering it to submit a new congressional franchise for the operation of its seven radio stations and informing it that pending compliance, its application for temporary permits to operate these radio stations would be held in abeyance.[12] Petitioner failed to comply with the franchise requirement; it claims that it did not receive the November 17, 1997 letter.
Despite the absence of a congressional franchise, the NTC notified petitioner on January 19, 1998 that its May 14, 1997 application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 was approved and would be released upon payment of the prescribed fee of P3,600.00.[13] After paying said amount,[14] however, the NTC refused to release to petitioner its renewed permit. Instead, the NTC commenced against petitioner Administrative Case No. 98-009 based on the November 17, 1997 letter. On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued an Order directing petitioner to show cause why its assigned frequency, television Channel 25, should not be recalled for lack of the required congressional franchise. Petitioner was also directed to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 unless subsequently authorized by the NTC.[15]
In compliance with the February 26, 1998 Order, petitioner filed its Answer on March 17, 1998.[16] In a hearing on April 22, 1998, petitioner presented evidence and asked for continuance of the presentation to May 20, 1998.[17] On May 4, 1998, however, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Mandamus, Prohibition, and Damages to compel the NTC to release its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 which was approved in January 1998. The appellate court denied the petition on September 30, 1998.
Meantime, on August 17, 1998, the NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98 which reads, viz:
“SUBJECT: Guidelines in the Renewal/Extension of Temporary Permit of Radio/TV Broadcast operators who failed to secure a legislative franchise conformably with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated May 3, 1994, entered into by and between the National Telecommunications and the Committee on Legislative Franchises, House of Representatives, and the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP).
In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative franchise approved during the last congress, the following guidelines are hereby issued:
1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year to give both Houses time to deliberate upon and recommend approval/disapproval thereof.
2. Broadcast operators affected by this circular must file their respective applications for renewal/extension of their Temporary Permits in the prescribed form together with the certification from the Committee on Legislative Franchises, House of Representatives that a franchise bill has indeed been filed prior to 30 November 1998.
3. In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer renew/extend its Temporary Permit and the Commission shall initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is observed.
4. Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the applicant has an approved Legislative Franchise.
This Memorandum Circular shall be published in one (1) newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and shall take effect thirty (30) days from its publication.
August 17, 1998, Quezon City, Philippines.”[18]
The Memorandum Circular was published in the Philippine Star on October 15, 1998.
Well within the November 30, 1998 deadline under the Memorandum Circular, House Bill No. 3216, entitled “An Act Granting the ACWS-United Broadcasting Network, Inc. a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations within the Philippines, and for other Purposes,” was filed with the Legislative Calendar Section, Bills and Index Division on September 2, 1998.[19]
On January 13, 1999, the NTC rendered a decision on Administrative Case No. 98-009 against petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, for lack of a legal personality to justify the issuance of any permit or license to the respondent (ACWS), the respondent not having a valid legislative franchise, the Commission hereby renders judgment as follows:
1) Channel 25 assigned to herein respondent ACWS is hereby RECALLED;
2) Respondent’s application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 is hereby DENIED; and
3) Respondent is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST from further operating Channel 25.”[20]
Petitioner sought recourse at the Court of Appeals which affirmed the NTC decision.
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari on the following grounds:
“I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RULING OF THE NTC THAT A CONGRESSIONAL FRANCHISE IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON IN THE OPERATION OF A RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING SYSTEM.
II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING OPINION 98 SERIES OF 1991 DATED JUNE 20, 1991 OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HOLDING THAT THE NTC MAY ISSUE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OPERATION OF RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING SYSTEMS, WITHOUT THE NEED OF A PRIOR FRANCHISE ISSUED BY CONGRESS, AS BINDING ON THE NTC WHO REQUESTED FOR SAID OPINION AND IS NOT MERELY ADVISORY, AS IT IS PREDICATED ON A DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONSIDERING ACT NO. 3846 AS REQUIRING A FRANCHISE FROM CONGRESS FOR THE LAWFUL OPERATION OF RADIO OR TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS WHEN CLEARLY ITS PROVISIONS COVER ONLY RADIO BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE TELEVISION STATIONS.
IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE RECALL OF THE FREQUENCY CHANNEL 25 PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED TO THE PETITIONER AND/OR THE CANCELLATION OF ITS PERMIT TO OPERATE WHICH IS UNREASONABLE, UNFAIR, OPPRESSIVE, WHIMSICAL AND CONFISCATORY WHEN IT PREVIOUSLY ISSUED THE SAID PERMIT WITHOUT REQUIRING A LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE.
V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT NTC CASE NO. 98-009 HAD BEEN RENDERED MOOT AND ACADEMIC WITH THE ADOPTION AND PROMULGATION BY THE NTC OF MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 14-10-98 DATED AUGUST 17, 1998 AS PETITIONER FILED THE APPLICATION FOR LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE PURSUANT THERETO.”[21]
The petition is devoid of merit.
We shall discuss together the first three assigned errors as they are interrelated.
Petitioner stresses that Act. No. 3846 covers only the operation of radio and not television stations as Section 1 of the said law does not mention television stations in its coverage, viz:
“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines…”
Petitioner observes that quite understandably, television stations were not included in Act No. 3846 because the law was enacted in 1931 when there was yet no television station in the Philippines. Following the rule in statutory construction that what is not included in the law is deemed excluded, petitioner avers that television stations are not covered by Act No. 3846. Petitioner notes that in fact, the NTC previously issued to it a temporary permit dated July 7, 1995 to operate Channel 25 from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997 without requiring a congressional franchise. Likewise, in 1996, the NTC issued to it a permit to increase its television operating power and to purchase a radio transmitter/transceiver for use in its television broadcasting, again without requiring a congressional franchise. Petitioner thus argues that, contrary to the January 19, 1999 decision of the NTC, its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate television Channel 25 does not require a congressional franchise.
In upholding the NTC decision, the Court of Appeals held that a congressional franchise is required for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations as this requirement under Act No. 3846 was not expressly repealed by P.D. No. 576-A nor E.O. No. 546. Citing Berces, Sr. v. Guingona,[22] it ruled that without an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless there is an irreconcilable inconsistency and repugnancy in the language of the new and old laws, which petitioner was not able to show.[23]
The appellate court correctly ruled that a congressional franchise is necessary for petitioner to operate television Channel 25. Even assuming that Act No. 3846 applies only to radio stations and not to television stations as petitioner adamantly insists, the subsequent P.D. No. 576-A clearly shows in Section 1 that a franchise is required to operate radio as well as television stations, viz:
“Sec. 1. No radio station or television channel may obtain a franchise unless it has sufficient capital on the basis of equity for its operation for at least one year, including purchase of equipment.” (emphasis supplied)
As pointed out in DOJ Opinion No. 98, there is nothing in P.D. No. 576-A that reveals any intention to do away with the requirement of a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations. Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A merely identifies the regulatory agencies from whom authorizations, in addition to the required congressional franchise, must be secured after December 31, 1981, viz:
“Sec. 6. All franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981. Thereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person, no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications or their successors who have the right and authority to assign to qualified parties frequencies, channels or other means of identifying broadcasting system . . .” (emphasis supplied)
To understand why it was necessary to identify these agencies, we turn a heedful eye on the laws regarding authorizations for the operation of radio and television stations that preceded P.D. No. 576-A.
Act No. 3846 of 1931 provides, viz:
“Sec. 1. No person, firm, company, association, or corporation shall construct, install, establish, or operate a radio transmitting station, or a radio receiving station used for commercial purposes, or a radio broadcasting station, without having first obtained a franchise therefor from the Congress of the Philippines:
x x x              x x x                 x x x
Sec. 1-A. No person, firm, company, association or corporation shall possess or own transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver), without registering the same with the Secretary of Public Works and Communications . . . and no person, firm, company, association or corporation shall construct or manufacture, or purchase radio transmitters or transceivers without a permit issued by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
x x x              x x x                 x x x
Sec. 3. The Secretary of Public Works and Communications is hereby empowered to regulate the construction or manufacture, possession, control, sale and transfer of radio transmitters or transceivers (combination transmitter-receiver) and the establishment, use, the operation of all radio stations and of all forms of radio communications and transmissions within the Philippines. In addition to the above, he shall have the following specific powers and duties:
x x x              x x x                 x x x
(c) He shall assign call letter and assign frequencies for each station licensed by him and for each station established by virtue of a franchise granted by the Congress of the Philippines and specify the stations to which each of such frequencies may be used;. . .”
Shortly after the declaration of Martial Law, then President Marcos issued P.D. No. 1 dated September 24, 1972, through which the Integrated Reorganization Plan for the executive branch was adopted. Under the Plan, the Public Service Commission was abolished and its functions transferred to special regulatory boards, among which was the Board of Communications with the following functions:
“5a. Issue Certificates of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities and services, radio communications systems . . ., radio and television broadcasting systems and other similar public utilities;
x x x              x x x                 x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for . . . radio and television broadcasting systems including amateur radio stations.”
With the creation of the Board of Communications under the Plan, it was no longer sufficient to secure authorization from the Secretary of Public Works and Communications as provided in Act No. 3846. The Board’s authorization was also necessary. Thus, P.D. No. 576-A provides in Section 6 that radio and television station operators must secure authorization from both the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the Board of Communications.
Dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise is not in line with the declared purposes of P.D. No. 576-A, viz:
“WHEREAS, it has been observed that some public utilities, especially radio and television stations, have a tendency toward monopoly in ownership and operation to such an extent that a region or section of the country may be covered by any number of such broadcast stations, all or most of which are owned, operated or managed by one person or corporation;
x x x              x x x                 x x x
WHEREAS, on account of the limited number of frequencies available for broadcasting in the Philippines, it is necessary to regulate the ownership and operation of radio and television stations and provide measures that would enhance quality and viability in broadcasting and help serve the public interests; . . .”
A textual interpretation of Section 6 of P.D. No. 576-A yields the same interpretation that after December 31, 1981, a franchise is still necessary to operate radio and television stations. Were it the intention of the law to do away with the requirement of a franchise after said date, then the phrase “(t)hereafter, irrespective of any franchise, grant, license, permit, certificate or other forms of authority to operate granted by any office, agency or person (emphasis supplied)” would not have been necessary because the first sentence of Section 6 already states that “(a)ll franchises, grants, licenses, permits, certificates or other forms of authority to operate radio or television broadcasting systems shall terminate on December 31, 1981.” It is therefore already understood that these forms of authority have no more force and effect after December 31, 1981. If the intention were to do away with the franchise requirement, Section 6 would have simply laid down after the first sentence the requirements to operate radio and television stations after December 31, 1981, i.e., “no radio or television station shall be authorized to operate without the authority of the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.” Instead, however, the phrase “irrespective of any franchise,…” was inserted to emphasize that a franchise or any other form of authorization from any office, agency or person does not suffice to operate radio and television stations because the authorizations of both the Board of Communications and the Secretary of Public Works and Communications are required as well. This interpretation adheres to the rule in statutory construction that words in a statute should not be construed as surplusage if a reasonable construction which will give them some force and meaning is possible.[24]
Contrary to the opinion of the Secretary of Justice in DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991, the appellate court was correct in ruling that E.O. No. 546 which came after P.D. No. 576-A did not dispense with the requirement of a congressional franchise. It merely abolished the Board of Communications and the Telecommunications Control Bureau under the Reorganization Plan and transferred their functions to the NTC,[25] including the power to issue Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) and grant permits for the use of frequencies, viz:
“Sec. 15. a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communication utilities and services, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radio and television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities;
x x x              x x x                 x x x
c. Grant permits for the use of radio frequencies for wireless telephone and telegraph systems and radio communication systems including amateur radio stations and radio and television broadcasting systems; . . . ”
E.O. No. 546 defines the regulatory and technical aspect of the legal process preparatory to the full exercise of the privilege to operate radio and television stations, which is different from the grant of a franchise from Congress, viz:
“The statutory functions of NTC may then be given effect as Congress’ prerogative to grant franchises under Act No. 3846 is upheld for they are distinct forms of authority. The former covers matters dealing mostly with the technical side of radio or television broadcasting, while the latter involves the exercise by the legislature of an exclusive power resulting in a franchise or a grant under authority of government, conferring a special right to do an act or series of acts of public concern (37 C.J.S., secs. 1, 14, pp. 144, 157).
In fine, there being no clear showing that the laws here involved cannot stand together, the presumption is against inconsistency or repugnance, hence, against implied repeal of the earlier law by the later statute (Agujetas v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 17, 1996).”[26]
As we held in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,[27] a franchise is distinguished from a CPC in that the former is a grant or privilege from the sovereign power, while the latter is a form of regulation through the administrative agencies, viz:
“A franchise started out as a “royal privilege or (a) branch of the King’s prerogative, subsisting in the hands of a subject.” This definition was given by Finch, adopted by Blackstone, and accepted by every authority since (State v. Twin Village Water Co., 98 Me 214, 56 A 763 [1903]). Today, a franchise, being merely a privilege emanating from the sovereign power of the state and owing its existence to a grant, is subject to regulation by the state itself by virtue of its police power through its administrative agencies.”[28]
Even prior to E.O. No. 546, the NTC’s precursor, i.e., the Board of Communications, already had the function of issuing CPC under the Integrated Reorganization Plan. The CPC was required by the Board at the same time that P.D. No. 576-A required a franchise to operate radio and television stations. The function of the NTC to issue CPC under E.O. No. 546 is thus nothing new and exists alongside the requirement of a congressional franchise under P.D. No. 576-A. There is no conflict between E.O. No. 546 and P.D. No 576-A; Section 15 of the former does not dispense with the franchise requirement in the latter. We adhere to the cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutes in pare materia, although in apparent conflict, or containing apparent inconsistencies, should, as far as reasonably possible, be construed in harmony with each other, so as to give force and effect to each.[29] The ruling of this Court in Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,[30] buttresses the interpretation that the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of radio and television stations exists alongside the requirement of a CPC. In that case, we held that under E.O. No. 546, the regulation of radio communications is a function assigned to and performed by the NTC and at the same time recognized the requirement of a congressional franchise for the operation of a radio station under Act No. 3846. We did not interpret E.O. No. 546 to have repealed the congressional franchise requirement under Act No. 3846 as these two laws are not inconsistent and can both be given effect. Likewise, in Radio Communication of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,[31] we recognized the necessity of both a congressional franchise under Act No. 3846 and a CPC under E.O. No. 546 to operate a radio communications system.
In buttressing its position that a congressional franchise is not required to operate its television station, petitioner banks on DOJ Opinion No. 98, Series of 1991 which states that under E.O. No. 546, the NTC may issue a permit or authorization for the operation of radio and television broadcasting systems without a prior franchise issued by Congress. Petitioner argues that the opinion is binding and conclusive upon the NTC as the NTC itself requested the advisory from the Secretary of Justice who is the legal adviser of government. Petitioner claims that it was precisely because of the above DOJ Opinion No. 98 that the NTC did not previously require a congressional franchise in all of its applications for permits with the NTC.
Petitioner, however, cannot rely on DOJ Opinion No. 98 as this opinion is merely persuasive and not necessarily controlling.[32] As shown above, the opinion is erroneous insofar as it holds that E.O. No. 546 dispenses with the requirement of a congressional franchise to operate radio and television stations. The case of Albano v. Reyes[33] cited in the DOJ opinion, which allegedly makes it binding upon the NTC, does not lend support to petitioner’s cause. In that case, we held, viz:
“Franchises issued by Congress are not required before each and every public utility may operate. Thus, the law has granted certain administrative agencies the power to grant licenses for or to authorize the operation of certain public utilities. (See E.O. Nos. 172 and 202)
That the Constitution provides in Art. XII, Sec. 11 that the issuance of a franchise, certificate or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by Congress does not necessarily imply, as petitioner posits, that only Congress has the power to grant such authorization. Our statute books are replete with laws granting specified agencies in the Executive Branch the power to issue such authorization for certain classes of public utilities. (footnote omitted)”[34]
Our ruling in Albano that a congressional franchise is not required before “each and every public utility may operate” should be viewed in its proper light. Where there is a law such as P.D. No. 576-A which requires a franchise for the operation of radio and television stations, that law must be followed until subsequently repealed. As we have earlier shown, however, there is nothing in the subsequent E.O. No. 546 which evinces an intent to dispense with the franchise requirement. In contradistinction with the case at bar, the law applicable in Albano, i.e., E.O. No. 30, did not require a franchise for the Philippine Ports Authority to take over, manage and operate the Manila International Port Complex and undertake the providing of cargo handling and port related services thereat. Similarly, in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, et al.,[35] we ruled that a legislative franchise is not necessary for the operation of domestic air transport because “there is nothing in the law nor in the Constitution which indicates that a legislative franchise is an indispensable requirement for an entity to operate as a domestic air transport operator.”[36] Thus, while it is correct to say that specified agencies in the Executive Branch have the power to issue authorization for certain classes of public utilities, this does not mean that the authorization or CPC issued by the NTC dispenses with the requirement of a franchise as this is clearly required under P.D. No. 576-A.
Petitioner contends that the NTC erroneously denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its Channel 25 frequency based on the May 3, 1994 MOU that requires a congressional franchise for the operation of television broadcast stations. The MOU is not an act of Congress and thus cannot amend Act No. 3846 which requires a congressional franchise for the operation of radio stations alone, and not television stations.
We find no merit in petitioner’s contention. As we have shown, even assuming that Act No. 3846 requires only radio stations to secure a congressional franchise for its operation, P.D. No. 576-A was subsequently issued in 1974, which clearly requires a franchise for both radio and television stations. Thus, the 1994 MOU did not amend any law, but merely clarified the existing law that requires a franchise.
That the legislative intent is to continue requiring a franchise for the operation of radio and television broadcasting stations is clear from the franchises granted by Congress after the effectivity of E.O. No. 546 in 1979 for the operation of radio and television stations. Among these are: (1) R.A. No. 9131 dated April 24, 2001, entitled “An Act Granting the Iddes Broadcast Group, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio and Television Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;” (2) R.A. No. 9148 dated July 31, 2001, entitled “An Act Granting the Hypersonic Broadcasting Center, Inc., a Franchise to Construct, Install, Establish, Operate and Maintain Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines;” and (3) R.A. No. 7678 dated February 17, 1994, entitled “An Act Granting the Digital Telecommunication Philippines, Incorporated, a Franchise to Install, Operate and Maintain Telecommunications Systems Throughout the Philippines.” All three franchises require the grantees to secure a CPCN/license/permit to construct and operate their stations/systems. Likewise, the Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides in Section 119 for tax on franchise of radio and/or television broadcasting companies, viz:
“Sec. 119. Tax on Franchises. – Any provision of general or special law to the contrary notwithstanding, there shall be levied, assessed and collected in respect to all franchises on radio and/or television broadcasting companies whose annual gross receipts of the preceding year does not exceed Ten million pesos (P10,000,000), subject to Section 236 of this Code, a tax of three percent (3%) and on electric, gas and water utilities, a tax of two percent (2%) on the gross receipts derived from the business covered by the law granting the franchise. . . “ (emphasis supplied)
Undeniably, petitioner is aware that a congressional franchise is necessary to operate its television station Channel 25 as shown by its actuations. Shortly before the December 31, 1994 deadline set in the MOU, petitioner filed an application for a franchise with Congress. It was not, however, acted upon in the 9th Congress for petitioner’s failure to submit the necessary supporting documents; petitioner failed to re-file the application in the following Congress. Petitioner also filed an application for a franchise with Congress on September 2, 1998, before the November 30, 1998 deadline under Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98.[37]
We now come to the fourth assigned error. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the recall of frequency Channel 25 previously assigned to it and the cancellation of its permit to operate which was already approved in January 1998. It claims that these acts of the NTC were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory considering that the NTC previously issued petitioner a temporary permit without requiring a congressional franchise.
On February 26, 1998, the NTC issued a show cause order to petitioner with the following decretal portion:
“IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission.”[38]
The order was supposedly based on a letter of the NTC dated November 17, 1997 informing petitioner that its application for renewal of temporary permits of its seven radio stations were being held in abeyance pending submission of its new congressional franchise. Petitioner was directed to submit the franchise within thirty days from expiration of its temporary permits to be renewed and informed that its failure to do so might constitute denial of its application.
Petitioner is correct that the November 17, 1997 letter referred only to its radio stations and not to its television Channel 25. Thus, it could not serve as basis for the February 26, 1998 show cause order which referred solely to its television Channel 25. Besides, petitioner claims that it did not receive the letter. Be that as it may, the NTC’s February 26, 1998 order for petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 was not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory. The 1994 MOU states in unmistakable terms that petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 would be valid for only two years, i.e., from June 29, 1995 to June 28, 1997. During these two years, petitioner was supposed to have secured a congressional franchise, otherwise “the NTC shall not extend or renew its permit or authorization to operate any further.”[39] Apparently, petitioner did not submit a congressional franchise to the NTC in applying for renewal of this temporary permit on May 14, 1997. The NTC’s approval of petitioner’s application to renew its temporary permit in January 1998 was thus erroneous because under the 1994 MOU, the NTC could not renew petitioner’s temporary permit to operate Channel 25 without a congressional franchise. In the absence of a renewed temporary permit, the NTC was correct in ordering petitioner to cease and desist from operating Channel 25, regardless of whether or not petitioner received the November 17, 1997 letter. The NTC’s erroneous approval of petitioner’s application in January 1998 did not estop the NTC from ordering petitioner on February 26, 1998 to cease and desist from operating Channel 25 for failure to comply with the franchise requirement as estoppel does not work against the government.[40]
Likewise, the NTC’s denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recall of its Channel 25 frequency in its January 13, 1999 decision were not unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory so as to offend petitioner’s right to due process. In Crusaders Broadcasting System, Inc. v. National Telecommunications Commission,[41] the Court ruled that although a particular ground for suspending operations of the broadcasting company was not reflected in the show cause order, the NTC could nevertheless raise said ground if any basis therefore was gleaned during the administrative proceedings. In the instant case, the lack of congressional franchise as ground for denial of petitioner’s application for renewal of temporary permit and recall of its Channel 25 frequency was raised not only during the administrative proceedings against it, but was even stated in the February 26, 1998 show cause order, viz:
“IN VIEW THEREOF, respondents are hereby directed to show cause in writing within ten (10) days from receipt of this order why their assigned frequency, more specifically Channel 25 in the UHF Band, should not be recalled for lack of the necessary Congressional Franchise as required by Section 1, Act No. 3846, as amended.
Moreover, respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from operating DWQH-TV, unless subsequently authorized by the Commission.” [42] (emphasis supplied)
In Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. Dans, Jr., et al.,[43] we held that the requirements of due process in administrative proceedings laid down by this Court in Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations[44] should be satisfied before a broadcast station may be closed or its operations curtailed. We enumerated these requirements, viz:
“. . . (1) the right to a hearing which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decisions in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.”[45]
Petitioner had the opportunity to present its case and submit evidence on why its assigned frequency Channel 25 should not be recalled and its application for renewal denied. Petitioner filed its Answer to the show cause order on March 17, 1998.[46] A hearing was held on April 22, 1998 wherein petitioner presented its evidence in compliance with the show cause order. Based on the NTC’s findings that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of a congressional franchise, the NTC denied its application for renewal of its temporary permit to operate Channel 25 and recalled its assigned Channel 25 frequency. The requirements of due process in Ang Tibay were satisfied, thus petitioner cannot say that the NTC’s actions were unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, whimsical and confiscatory.
Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that Administrative Case No. 98-009, the administrative proceeding against it for failure to secure a congressional franchise to operate its television Channel 25, has been rendered moot and academic by the adoption and promulgation of NTC Memorandum Circular No. 14-10-98 dated August 17, 1998 which took effect on November 15, 1998. The Memorandum Circular states, viz:
“In compliance with the MOU and in order to clear the ambiguity surrounding the operation of broadcast operators who were not able to have their legislative franchise approved during the last Congress, the following guidelines are hereby issued:
1. Existing broadcast operators who were not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise bill approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . .”
Petitioner avers that the NTC erroneously held that this Memorandum Circular is not applicable to it because the words of the circular are clear that it covers “existing broadcasting operators” including petitioner. In compliance with the Memorandum Circular, petitioner filed House Bill No. 32 on September 2, 1998, well within the November 30, 1998 deadline. Thus, petitioner argues that the NTC erred in denying its application for renewal of permit to operate Channel 25 and recalling its assigned Channel 25 frequency on January 13, 1999, long before the Memorandum Circular’s December 31, 1999 deadline to secure a congressional franchise. Petitioner posits that the NTC’s premature and arbitrary promulgation of its January 13, 1999 decision “slammed the door for the petitioner to secure its legislative franchise. The pending application for legislative franchise of petitioner was effectively struck out by said NTC decision.”[47]
Whether or not the benefits of the Memorandum Circular extend to petitioner, the fact is, as correctly pointed out by the appellate court, petitioner failed to secure a legislative franchise by December 31, 1999. Consequently, the NTC’s recall of petitioner’s assigned frequency Channel 25 and denial of its application for renewal of its permit to operate the said television channel were proper as the Memorandum Circular provides, viz:
“1.     Existing broadcast operators who are not able to secure a legislative franchise up to this date (August 17, 1998) are given up to December 31, 1999 within which to have their application for a legislative franchise approved by Congress. The franchise bill must be filed immediately but not later than November 30th of this year . . .
x x x              x x x                 x x x
3.      In the event the permittee will not be able to have its franchise bill approved within the prescribed period, the NTC will no longer renew/extend its temporary permit and the Commission shall initiate the recall of its assigned frequency provided that due process of law is observed.
4.       Henceforth, no application/petition for Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to establish, maintain and operate a broadcast station in the broadcast service shall be accepted for filing without showing that the applicant has an approved legislative franchise.”(emphasis supplied)
Petitioner’s argument is flawed when it states that the January 13, 1999 decision of the NTC “slammed the door” on its application for a congressional franchise as the process of securing a congressional franchise is separate and distinct from the process of applying for renewal of a temporary permit with the NTC. The latter is not a prerequisite to the former. In fact, in the normal course of securing authorizations to operate a television and radio station, the application for a CPC with the NTC comes after securing a franchise from Congress.[48] The CPC is not a condition for the grant of a congressional franchise.[49]
The Court is not unmindful that there is a trend towards delegating the legislative power to authorize the operation of certain public utilities to administrative agencies and dispensing with the requirement of a congressional franchise as in the Albano case which involved the provision of cargo handling and port related services at the Manila International Port Complex and the PAL case involving the operation of domestic air transport. The rationale for this trend was explained in the PAL case, viz:
“. . . With the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislature, and towards the approval of the practice by the courts. (Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. vs. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065, June 26, 1940, 70 Phil 221.) It is generally recognized that a franchise may be derived indirectly from the state through a duly designated agency, and to this extent, the power to grant franchises has frequently been delegated, even to agencies other than those of a legislative nature. (Dyer vs. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co., 2 Port. 296, 27 Am. D. 655; Christian-Todd Tel. Co. vs. Commonwealth, 161 S.W. 543, 156 Ky. 557, 37 C.J.S. 158) In pursuance of this, it has been held that privileges conferred by grant by local authorities as agents for the state constitute as much a legislative franchise as though the grant had been made by an act of the Legislature. (Superior Water, Light and Power Co. vs. City of Superior, 181 N.W. 113, 174 Wis. 257, affirmed 183 N.W. 254, 37 C.J.S. 158.)
The trend of modern legislation is to vest the Public Service Commissioner with the power to regulate and control the operation of public services under reasonable rules and regulations, and as a general rule, courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion when it is just and reasonable and founded upon a legal right.”[50]
The criticism against the requirement of a congressional franchise is incisively expressed by a public utilities lawyer, viz:
“As will be noted, a legislative franchise is required to install and operate a radio station before an applicant can apply for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate a radio station based in any part of the country. Under Act No. 3846 of 1929, Sec. 1, it was provided that no one may install and operate a radio station ‘without having first obtained a franchise therefore from the Congress of the Philippines.’ Since then, this has been strictly followed. And this holds true with respect to application for electric, telephone and many other telecommunications services. Before, even mere application for authority to operate an ice plant must have prior congressional franchise. But this was not strictly followed until ice plant operations were eventually deregulated. Right now, the both houses of the legislature are saddled with House Bill Nos. etc. for the grant of legislative franchise to operate this and that public utility services in various places in the Philippines. We hear during sessions in both houses the time wasted on reports and considerations of these house bills for grant of franchises. The legislature is empowered and has created respective regulatory bodies with requisite expertise to handle franchising and regulation of such types of public utility services, why not just entrust all these functions to them?
What exactly is the reason or rationale for imposing a prior congressional franchise? There seems to be no valid reason for it except to impose added burden and expenses on the part of the applicant. The justification appears to be simply because this was required in the past so it is now. We are reminded of the forceful denunciation of Justice Holmes of a stubborn adherence to an anachronistic rule of law:
‘It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. (The Path of the Law, Collected Legal Papers [1920] 210, 212 quoted from The Justice Holmes Reader, Julius N. Marke, 1955 ed., p. 278.)’”[51]
The call to dispense with the requisite legislative franchise must, however, be addressed to Congress as the lawmaker of the land for the Court’s function is to interpret and not to rewrite the law. As long as the law remains unchanged, the requirement of a franchise to operate a television station must be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Court of Appeals’ January 13, 2000 decision and February 21, 2000 resolution are AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

research 1 sir d2 ko na lang send

2004-07-29T12:00:00.000+08:00

[G.R. No. 128690. January 21, 1999]
ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, REPUBLIC BROADCASTING CORP., VIVA PRODUCTIONS, INC., and VICENTE DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. (hereinafter ABS-CBN) seeks to reverse and set aside the decision[1] of 31 October 1996 and the resolution[2] of 10 March 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44125. The former affirmed with modification the decision[3] of 28 April 1993 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80, in Civil Case No. Q-12309. The latter denied the motion to reconsider the decision of 31 October 1996.
The antecedents, as found by the RTC and adopted by the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
In 1990, ABS-CBN and VIVA executed a Film Exhibition Agreement (Exh. “A”) whereby Viva gave ABS-CBN an exclusive right to exhibit some Viva films. Sometime in December 1991, in accordance with paragraph 2.4 [sic] of said agreement stating that-
1.4 ABS-CBN shall have the right of first refusal to the next twenty-four (24) Viva films for TV telecast under such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties hereto, provided, however, that such right shall be exercised by ABS-CBN from the actual offer in writing.
Viva, through defendant Del Rosario, offered ABS-CBN, through its vice-president Charo Santos-Concio, a list of three (3) film packages (36 title) from which ABS-CBN may exercise its right of first refusal under the afore-said agreement (Exhs. “1” par. 2, “2,” “2-A” and “2-B – Viva). ABS-CBN, however through Mrs. Concio, “can tick off only ten (10) titles” (from the list) “we can purchase” (Exh. “3” – Viva) and therefore did not accept said list (TSN, June 8, 1992, pp. 9-10). The titles ticked off by Mrs. Concio are not the subject of the case at bar except the film “Maging Sino Ka Man.”
For further enlightenment, this rejection letter dated January 06, 1992 (Exh “3” – Viva) is hereby quoted:
6 January 1992
Dear Vic,
This is not a very formal business letter I am writing to you as I would like to express my difficulty in recommending the purchase of the three film packages you are offering ABS-CBN.
From among the three packages I can only tick off 10 titles we can purchase. Please see attached. I hope you will understand my position. Most of the action pictures in the list do not have big action stars in the cast. They are not for primetime. In line with this I wish to mention that I have not scheduled for telecast several action pictures in our very first contract because of the cheap production value of these movies as well as the lack of big action stars. As a film producer, I am sure you understand what I am trying to say as Viva produces only big action pictures.
In fact, I would like to request two (2) additional runs for these movies as I can only schedule them in out non-primetime slots. We have to cover the amount that was paid for these movies because as you very well know that non-primetime advertising rates are very low. These are the unaired titles in the first contract.
1. Kontra Persa [sic]
2. Raider Platoon
3. Underground guerillas
4. Tiger Command
5. Boy de Sabog
6. lady Commando
7. Batang Matadero
8. Rebelyon
I hope you will consider this request of mine.
The other dramatic films have been offered to us before and have been rejected because of the ruling of MTRCB to have them aired at 9:00 p.m. due to their very adult themes.
As for the 10 titles I have choosen [sic] from the 3 packages please consider including all the other Viva movies produced last year, I have quite an attractive offer to make.
Thanking you and with my warmest regards.
(Signed)
Charo Santos-Concio
On February 27, 1992, defendant Del Rosario approached ABS-CBN’s Ms. Concio, with a list consisting of 52 original movie titles (i.e., not yet aired on television) including the 14 titles subject of the present case, as well as 104 re-runs (previously aired on television) from which ABS-CBN may choose another 52 titles, as a total of 156 titles, proposing to sell to ABS-CBN airing rights over this package of 52 originals and 52 re-runs for P60,000,000.00 of which P30,000,000.00 will be in cash and P30,000,000.00 worth of television spots (Exh. “4” to “4-C” – Viva; “9” – Viva).
On April 2, 1992, defendant Del Rosario and ABS-CBN’s general manager, Eugenio Lopez III, met at the Tamarind Grill Restaurant in Quezon City to discuss the package proposal of VIVA. What transpired in that lunch meeting is the subject of conflicting versions. Mr. Lopez testified that he and Mr. Del Rosario allegedly agreed that ABS-CBN was granted exclusive film rights to fourteen (14) films for a total consideration of P36 million; that he allegedly put this agreement as to the price and number of films in a “napkin” and signed it and gave it to Mr. Del Rosario (Exh. D; TSN, pp. 24-26, 77-78, June 8, 1992). On the other hand. Del Rosario denied having made any agreement with Lopez regarding the 14 Viva films; denied the existence of a napkin in which Lopez wrote something; and insisted that what he and Lopez discussed at the lunch meeting was Viva’s film package offer of 104 films (52 originals and 52 re-runs) for a total price of P60 million. Mr. Lopez promising [sic]to make a counter proposal which came in the form of a proposal contract Annex “C” of the complaint (Exh. “1” – Viva; Exh “C” – ABS-CBN).
On April 06, 1992, Del Rosario and Mr. Graciano Gozon of RBS Senior vice-president for Finance discussed the terms and conditions of Viva’s offer to sell the 104 films, after the rejection of the same package by ABS-CBN.
On April 07, 1992, defendant Del Rosario received through his secretary , a handwritten note from Ms. Concio, (Exh. “5” – Viva), which reads: “Here’s the draft of the contract. I hope you find everything in order,” to which was attached a draft exhibition agreement (Exh. “C” – ABS-CBN; Exh. “9” – Viva p. 3) a counter-proposal covering 53 films, 52 of which came from the list sent by defendant Del Rosario and one film was added by Ms. Concio, for a consideration of P35 million. Exhibit “C” provides that ABS-CBN is granted film rights to 53 films and contains a right of first refusal to 1992 Viva Films.” The said counter proposal was however rejected by Viva’s Board of Directors [in the] evening of the same day, April 7, 1992, as Viva would not sell anything less than the package of 104 films for P60 million pesos (Exh. “9” – Viva), and such rejection was relayed to Ms. Concio.
On April 29, 1992, after the rejection of ABS-CBN and following several negotiations and meetings defendant Del Rosario and Viva’s President Teresita Cruz, in consideration of P60 million, signed a letter of agreement dated April 24, 1992, granting RBS the exclusive right to air 104 Viva-produced and/or acquired films (Exh. “7-A” - RBS; Exh. “4” – RBS) including the fourteen (14) films subject of the present case.[4]
On 27 May 1992, ABS-CBN filed before the RTC a complaint for specific performance with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against private respondents Republic Broadcasting Corporation[5] (hereafter RBS), Viva Production (hereafter VIVA), and Vicente del Rosario. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-92-12309.
On 28 May 1992, the RTC issued a temporary restraining order[6] enjoining private respondents from proceeding with the airing, broadcasting, and televising of the fourteen VIVA films subject of the controversy, starting with the film Maging Sino Ka Man, which was scheduled to be shown on private respondent RBS’ channel 7 at seven o’clock in the evening of said date.
On 17 June 1992, after appropriate proceedings, the RTC issued an order[7] directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon ABS-CBN’s posting of a P35 million bond. ABS-CBN moved for the reduction of the bond,[8] while private respondents moved for reconsideration of the order and offered to put up a counterbond.[9]
In the meantime, private respondents filed separate answer with counterclaim.[10] RBS also set up a cross-claim against VIVA.
On 3 August 1992, the RTC issued an order[11] dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction upon the posting by RBS of a P30 million counterbond to answer for whatever damages ABS-CBN might suffer by virtue of such dissolution. However, it reduced petitioner’s injunction bond to P15 million as a condition precedent for the reinstatement of the writ of preliminary injunction should private respondents be unable to post a counterbond.
At the pre-trial[12] on 6 August 1992, the parties upon suggestion of the court, agreed to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. In the meantime, RBS prayed for and was granted reasonable time within which to put up a P30 million counterbond in the event that no settlement would be reached.
As the parties failed to enter into an amicable settlement, RBS posted on 1 October 1992 a counterbond, which the RTC approved in its Order of 15 October 1992.[13]
On 19 October 1992, ABS-CBN filed a motion for reconsideration[14] of the 3 August and 15 October 1992 Orders, which RBS opposed.[15]
On 29 October, the RTC conducted a pre-trial.[16]
Pending resolution of its motion for reconsideration, ABS-CBN filed with the Court of Appeals a petition[17] challenging the RTC’s Order of 3 August and 15 October 1992 and praying for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the RTC from enforcing said orders. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 29300.
On 3 November 1992, the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order[18] to enjoin the airing, broadcasting, and televising of any or all of the films involved in the controversy.
On 18 December 1992, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision[19] dismissing the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 29300 for being premature. ABS-CBN challenged the dismissal in a petition for review filed with this Court on 19 January 1993, which was docketed s G.R. No. 108363.
In the meantime the RTC received the evidence for the parties in Civil Case No. Q-92-12309. Thereafter, on 28 April 1993, it rendered a decision[20] in favor of RBS and VIVA and against ABS-CBN disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, under cool reflection and prescinding from the foregoing, judgment is rendered in favor of defendants and against the plaintiff.
(1) The complaint is hereby dismissed;
(2) Plaintiff ABS-CBN is ordered to pay defendant RBS the following:
a) P107,727.00 the amount of premium paid by RBS to the surety which issued defendants RBS’s bond to lift the injunction;
b) P191,843.00 for the amount of print advertisement for “Maging Sino Ka Man” in various newspapers;
c) Attorney’s fees in the amount of P1 million;
d) P5 million as and by way of moral damages;
e) P5 million as and by way of exemplary damages;
(3) For the defendant VIVA, plaintiff ABS-CBN is ordered to pay P212,000.00 by way of reasonable attorney’s fees.
(4) The cross-claim of defendant RBS against defendant VIVA is dismissed.
(5) Plaintiff to pay the costs.
According to the RTC, there was no meeting of minds on the price and terms of the offer. The alleged agreement between Lopez III and Del Rosario was subject to the approval of the VIVA Board of Directors, and said agreement was disapproved during the meeting of the Board on 7 April 1992. Hence, there was no basis for ABS-CBN’s demand that VIVA signed the 1992 Film Exhibition Agreement. Furthermore, the right of first refusal under the 1990 Film Exhibition Agreement had previously been exercised per Ms. Concio’s letter to Del Rosario ticking off ten titles acceptable to them, which would have made the 1992 agreement an entirely new contract.
On 21 June 1993, this Court denied[21] ABS-CBN’s petition for review in G.R. No. 108363, as no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in its challenged decision and the case had “become moot and academic in view of the dismissal of the main action by the court a quo in its decision” of 28 April 1993.
Aggrieved by the RTC’s decision, ABS-CBN appealed to the Court of Appeals claiming that there was a perfected contract between ABS-CBN and VIVA granting ABS-CBN the exclusive right to exhibit the subject films. Private respondents VIVA and Del Rosario also appealed seeking moral and exemplary damages and additional attorney’s fees.
In its decision of 31 October 1996, the Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC that the contract between ABS-CBN and VIVA had not been perfected, absent the approval by the VIVA Board of Directors of whatever Del Rosario, it’s agent, might have agreed with Lopez III. The appellate court did not even believe ABS-CBN’s evidence that Lopez III actually wrote down such an agreement on a “napkin,” as the same was never produced in court. It likewise rejected ABS-CBN’s insistence on its right of first refusal and ratiocinated as follows:
As regards the matter of right of first refusal, it may be true that a Film Exhibition Agreement was entered into between Appellant ABS-CBN and appellant VIVA under Exhibit “A” in 1990 and that parag. 1.4 thereof provides:
1.4 ABS-CBN shall have the right of first refusal to the next twenty-four (24) VIVA films for TV telecast under such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties hereto, provided, however, that such right shall be exercised by ABS-CBN within a period of fifteen (15) days from the actual offer in writing (Records, p. 14).
[H]owever, it is very clear that said right of first refusal in favor of ABS-CBN shall still be subjected to such terms as may be agreed upon by the parties thereto, and that the said right shall be exercised by ABS-CBN within fifteen (15) days from the actual offer in writing.
Said parag. 1.4 of the agreement Exhibit “A” on the right of first refusal did not fix the price of the film right to the twenty-four (24) films, nor did it specify the terms thereof. The same are still left to be agreed upon by the parties.
In the instant case, ABS-CBN’s letter of rejection Exhibit 3 (Records, p. 89) stated that it can only tick off ten (10) films, and the draft contract Exhibit “C” accepted only fourteen (14) films, while parag. 1.4 of Exhibit “A” speaks of the next twenty-four (24) films.
The offer of VIVA was sometime in December 1991, (Exhibits 2, 2-A, 2-B; Records, pp. 86-88; Decision, p. 11, Records, p. 1150), when the first list of VIVA films was sent by Mr. Del Rosario to ABS-CBN. The Vice President of ABS-CBN, Mrs. Charo Santos-Concio, sent a letter dated January 6, 1992 (Exhibit 3, Records, p. 89) where ABS-CBN exercised its right of refusal by rejecting the offer of VIVA. As aptly observed by the trial court, with the said letter of Mrs. Concio of January 6, 1992, ABS-CBN had lost its right of first refusal. And even if We reckon the fifteen (15) day period from February 27, 1992 (Exhibit 4 to 4-C) when another list was sent to ABS-CBN after the letter of Mrs. Concio, still the fifteen (15) day period within which ABS-CBN shall exercise its right of first refusal has already expired.[22]
Accordingly, respondent court sustained the award factual damages consisting in the cost of print advertisements and the premium payments for the counterbond, there being adequate proof of the pecuniary loss which RBS has suffered as a result of the filing of the complaint by ABS-CBN. As to the award of moral damages, the Court of Appeals found reasonable basis therefor, holding that RBS’s reputation was debased by the filing of the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-92-12309 and by the non-showing of the film “Maging Sino Ka Man.” Respondent court also held that exemplary damages were correctly imposed by way of example or correction for the public good in view of the filing of the complaint despite petitioner’s knowledge that the contract with VIVA had not been perfected. It also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, reasoning that with ABS-CBN’s act of instituting Civil Case No. Q-92-12309, RBS was “unnecessarily forced to litigate.” The appellate court, however, reduced the awards of moral damages to P 2 million, exemplary damages to P2 million, and attorney’s fees to P500,000.00.
On the other hand, respondent Court of Appeals denied VIVA and Del Rosario’s appeal because it was “RBS and not VIVA which was actually prejudiced when the complaint was filed by ABS-CBN.”
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, ABS-CBN filed the petition in this case, contending that the Court of Appeals gravely erred in
I
… RULING THAT THERE WAS NO PERFECTED CONTRACT BETWEEN PETITIONER AND PRIVATE RESPONDENT VIVA NOTWITHSTANDING PREPONFERANCE OF EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PETITIONER TO THE CONTRARY.
II
… IN AWARDING ACTUAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT RBS.
III
… IN AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT RBS.
IV
… IN AWARDING ATORNEY’S FEES OF RBS.
ABS-CBN claims that it had yet to fully exercise its right of first refusal over twenty-four titles under the 1990 Film Exhibition Agreement, as it had chosen only ten titles from the first list. It insists that we give credence to Lopez’s testimony that he and Del Rosario met at the Tamarind Grill Restaurant, discussed the terms and conditions of the second list (the 1992 Film Exhibition Agreement) and upon agreement thereon, wrote the same on a paper napkin. It also asserts that the contract has already been effective, as the elements thereof, namely, consent, object, and consideration were established. It then concludes that the Court of Appeals’ pronouncements were not supported by law and jurisprudence, as per our decision of 1 December 1995 in Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[23] which cited Toyota Shaw, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[24] Ang Yu Asuncion v. Court of Appeals,[25] and Villonco Realty Company v. Bormaheco, Inc.[26]
Anent the actual damages awarded to RBS, ABS-CBN disavows liability therefor. RBS spent for the premium on the counterbond of its own volition in order to negate the injunction issued by the trial court after the parties had ventilated their respective positions during the hearings for the purpose. The filing of the counterbond was an option available to RBS, but it can hardly be argued that ABS-CBN compelled RBS to incur such expense. Besides, RBS had another available option, i.e., move for the dissolution of the injunction; or if it was determined to put up a counterbond, it could have presented a cash bond. Furthermore under Article 2203 of the Civil Code, the party suffering loss injury is also required to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission. As regards the cost of print advertisements, RBS had not convincingly established that this was a loss attributable to the non-showing of “Maging Sino Ka Man”; on the contrary, it was brought out during trial that with or without the case or injunction, RBS would have spent such an amount to generate interest in the film.
ABS-CBN further contends that there was no other clear basis for the awards of moral and exemplary damages. The controversy involving ABS-CBN and RBS did not in any way originate from business transaction between them. The claims for such damages did not arise from any contractual dealings or from specific acts committed by ABS-CBN against RBS that may be characterized as wanton, fraudulent, or reckless; they arose by virtue only of the filing of the complaint. An award of moral and exemplary damages is not warranted where the record is bereft of any proof that a party acted maliciously or in bad faith in filing an action.[27] In any case, free resort to courts for redress of wrongs is a matter of public policy. The law recognizes the right of every one to sue for that which he honestly believes to be his right without fear of standing trial for damages where by lack of sufficient evidence, legal technicalities, or a different interpretation of the laws on the matter, the case would lose ground.[28] One who, makes use of his own legal right does no injury.[29] If damage results from filing of the complaint, it is damnum absque injuria.[30] Besides, moral damages are generally not awarded in favor of a juridical person, unless it enjoys a good reputation that was debased by the offending party resulting in social humiliation.[31]
As regards the award of attorney’s fees, ABS-CBN maintains that the same had no factual, legal, or equitable justification. In sustaining the trial court’s award, the Court of Appeals acted in clear disregard of the doctrine laid down in Buan v. Camaganacan[32] that the text of the decision should state the reason why attorney’s fees are being awarded; otherwise, the award should be disallowed. Besides, no bad faith has been imputed on, much less proved as having been committed by, ABS-CBN. It has been held that “where no sufficient showing of bad faith would be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause, attorney’s fees shall not be recovered as cost.”[33]
On the other hand, RBS asserts that there was no perfected contract between ABS-CBN and VIVA absent meeting of minds between them regarding the object and consideration of the alleged contract. It affirms that ABS-CBN’s claim of a right of first refusal was correctly rejected by the trial court. RBS insists the premium it had paid for the counterbond constituted a pecuniary loss upon which it may recover. It was obliged to put up the counterbond due to the injunction procured by ABS-CBN. Since the trial court found that ABS-CBN had no cause of action or valid claim against RBS and, therefore not entitled to the writ of injunction, RBS could recover from ABS-CBN the premium paid on the counterbond. Contrary to the claim of ABS-CBN, the cash bond would prove to be more expensive, as the loss would be equivalent to the cost of money RBS would forego in case the P30 million came from its funds or was borrowed from banks.
RBS likewise asserts that it was entitled to the cost of advertisements for the cancelled showing of the film “Maging Sino Ka Man” because the print advertisements were out to announce the showing on a particular day and hour on Channel 7, i.e., in its entirety at one time, not as series to be shown on a periodic basis. Hence, the print advertisements were good and relevant for the particular date of showing, and since the film could not be shown on that particular date and hour because of the injunction, the expenses for the advertisements had gone to waste.
As regards moral and exemplary damages, RBS asserts that ABS-CBN filed the case and secured injunctions purely for the purpose of harassing and prejudicing RBS. Pursuant then to Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code, ABS-CBN must be held liable for such damages. Citing Tolentino,[34] damages may be awarded in cases of abuse of rights even if the done is not illicit, and there is abuse of rights where a plaintiff institutes an action purely for the purpose of harassing or prejudicing the defendant.
In support of its stand that a juridical entity can recover moral and exemplary damages, private respondent RBS cited People v. Manero,[35] where it was stated that such entity may recover moral and exemplary damages if it has a good reputation that is debased resulting in social humiliation. It then ratiocinates; thus:
There can be no doubt that RBS’ reputation has been debased by ABS-CBN’s acts in this case. When RBS was not able to fulfill its commitment to the viewing public to show the film “Maging Sino Ka Man” on the scheduled dates and times (and on two occasions that RBS advertised), it suffered serious embarrassment and social humiliation. When the showing was cancelled, irate viewers called up RBS’ offices and subjected RBS to verbal abuse (“Announce kayo ng announce, hindi ninyo naman ilalabas”, “nanloloko yata kayo”) (Exh. 3-RBS, par.3). This alone was not something RBS brought upon itself. It was exactly what ABS-CBN had planted to happen.
The amount of moral and exemplary damages cannot be said to be excessive. Two reasons justify the amount of the award.
The first is that the humiliation suffered by RBS, is national in extent. RBS’ operations as a broadcasting company is [sic] nationwide. Its clientele, like that of ABS-CBN, consists of those who own and watch television. It is not an exaggeration to state, and it is a matter of judicial notice that almost every other person in the country watches television. The humiliation suffered by RBS is multiplied by the number of televiewers who had anticipated the showing of the film, “Maging Sino Ka Man” on May 28 and November 3, 1992 but did not see it owing to the cancellation. Added to this are the advertisers who had placed commercial spots for the telecast and to whom RBS had a commitment in consideration of the placement to show the film in the dates and times specified.
The second is that it is a competitor that caused RBS suffer the humiliation. The humiliation and injury are far greater in degree when caused by an entity whose ultimate business objective is to lure customers (viewers in this case) away from the competition.[36]
For their part, VIVA and Vicente del Rosario contend that the findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals do not support ABS-CBN’s claim that there was a perfected contract. Such factual findings can no longer be disturbed in this petition for review under Rule 45, as only questions of law can be raised, not questions of fact. On the issue of damages and attorneys fees, they adopted the arguments of RBS.
The key issues for our consideration are (1) whether there was a perfected contract between VIVA and ABS-CBN, and (2) whether RBS is entitled to damages and attorney’s fees. It may be noted that that award of attorney’s fees of P212,000 in favor of VIVA is not assigned as another error.
I
The first issue should be resolved against ABS-CBN. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself to give something or render some service to another[37] for a consideration. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation, which is established.[38] A contract undergoes three stages:
(a) preparation, conception, or generation, which is the period of negotiation and bargaining, ending at the moment of agreement of the parties;
(b)    perfection or birth of the contract, which is the moment when the parties come to agree on the terms of the contract; and
(c) consummation or death, which is the fulfillment or performance of the terms agreed upon in the contract.[39]
Contracts that are consensual in nature are perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. Once there is concurrence between the offer and the acceptance upon the subject matter, consideration, and terms of payment a contract is produced. The offer must be certain. To convert the offer into a contract, the acceptance must be absolute and must not qualify the terms of the offer; it must be plain, unequivocal, unconditional, and without variance of any sort from the proposal. A qualified acceptance, or one that involves a new proposal, constitutes a counter-offer and is a rejection of the original offer. Consequently, when something is desired which is not exactly what is proposed in the offer, such acceptance is not sufficient to generate consent because any modification or variation from the terms of the offer annuls the offer.[40]
When Mr. Del Rosario of Viva met Mr. Lopez of ABS-CBN at the Tamarind Grill on 2 April 1992 to discuss the package of films, said package of 104 VIVA films was VIVA’s offer to ABS-CBN to enter into a new Film Exhibition Agreement. But ABS-CBN, sent through Ms. Concio, counter-proposal in the form a draft contract proposing exhibition of 53 films for a consideration of P35 million. This counter-proposal could be nothing less than the counter-offer of Mr. Lopez during his conference with Del Rosario at Tamarind Grill Restaurant. Clearly, there was no acceptance of VIVA’s offer, for it was met by a counter-offer which substantially varied the terms of the offer.
ABS-CBN’s reliance in Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[41] and Villonco Realty Company v. Bormaheco, Inc.,[42] is misplaced. In these cases, it was held that an acceptance may contain a request for certain changes in the terms of the offer and yet be a binding acceptance as long as “it is clear that the meaning of the acceptance is positively and unequivocally to accept the offer, whether such request is granted or not.” This ruling was, however, reversed in the resolution of 29 March 1996,[43] which ruled that the acceptance of an offer must be unqualified and absolute, i.e., it “must be identical in all respects with that of the offer so as to produce consent or meetings of the minds.”
On the other hand, in Villonco, cited in Limketkai, the alleged changes in the revised counter-offer were not material but merely clarificatory of what had previously been agreed upon. It cited the statement in Stuart v. Franklin Life Insurance Co.[44] that “a vendor’s change in a phrase of the offer to purchase, which change does not essentially change the terms of the offer, does not amount to a rejection of the offer and the tender of a counter-offer.”[45] However, when any of the elements of the contract is modified upon acceptance, such alteration amounts to a counter-offer.
In the case at bar, ABS-CBN made no unqualified acceptance of VIVA’s offer hence, they underwent period of bargaining. ABS-CBN then formalized its counter-proposals or counter-offer in a draft contract. VIVA through its Board of Directors, rejected such counter-offer. Even if it be conceded arguendo that Del Rosario had accepted the counter-offer, the acceptance did not bind VIVA, as there was no proof whatsoever that Del Rosario had the specific authority to do so.
Under the Corporation Code,[46] unless otherwise provided by said Code, corporate powers, such as the power to enter into contracts, are exercised by the Board of Directors. However, the Board may delegate such powers to either an executive committee or officials or contracted managers. The delegation, except for the executive committee, must be for specific purposes.[47] Delegation to officers makes the latter agents of the corporation; accordingly, the general rules of agency as to the binding effects of their acts would apply.[48] For such officers to be deemed fully clothed by the corporation to exercise a power of the Board, the latter must specially authorize them to do so. that Del Rosario did not have the authority to accept ABS-CBN’s counter-offer was best evidenced by his submission of the draft contract to VIVA’s Board of Directors for the latter’s approval. In any event, there was between Del Rosario and Lopez III no meeting of minds. The following findings of the trial court are instructive:
A number of considerations militate against ABS-CBN’s claim that a contract was perfected at that lunch meeting on April 02, 1992 at the Tamarind Grill.
FIRST, Mr. Lopez claimed that what was agreed upon at the Tamarind Grill referred to the price and the number of films, which he wrote on a napkin. However, Exhibit “C” contains numerous provisions which were not discussed at the Tamarind Grill, if Lopez testimony was to be believed nor could they have been physically written on a napkin. There was even doubt as to whether it was a paper napkin or cloth napkin. In short what were written in Exhibit “C” were not discussed, and therefore could not have been agreed upon, by the parties. How then could this court compel the parties to sign Exhibit “C” when the provisions thereof were not previously agreed upon?
SECOND, Mr. Lopez claimed that what was agreed upon as the subject matter of the contract was 14 films. The complaint in fact prays for delivery of 14 films. But Exhibit “C” mentions 53 films as its subject matter. Which is which? If Exhibit “C” reflected the true intent of the parties, then ABS-CBN’s claim for 14 films in its complaint is false or if what it alleged in the complaint is true, then Exhibit “C” did not reflect what was agreed upon by the parties. This underscores the fact that there was no meeting of the minds as to the subject matter of the contract, so as to preclude perfection thereof. For settled is the rule that there can be no contract where there is no object certain which is its subject matter (Art. 1318, NCC).
THIRD, Mr. Lopez [sic] answer to question 29 of his affidavit testimony (Exh. “D”) States:
“We were able to reach an agreement. VIVA gave us the exclusive license to show these fourteen (14) films, and we agreed to pay Viva the amount of P16,050,000.00 as well as grant Viva commercial slots worth P19,950,000.00. We had already earmarked this P16,050,000.00.”
which gives a total consideration of P36 million (P19,951,000.00 plus P16,050,000.00 equals P36,000,000.00).
On cross-examination Mr. Lopez testified:
Q    What was written in this napkin?
A    The total price, the breakdown the known Viva movies, the 7 blockbuster movies and the other 7 Viva movies because the price was broken down accordingly. The none [sic] Viva and the seven other Viva movies and the sharing between the cash portion and the concerned spot portion in the total amount of P35 million pesos.
Now, which is which? P36 million or P35 million? This weakens ABS-CBN’s claim.
FOURTH. Mrs. Concio, testifying for ABS-CBN stated that she transmitted Exhibit “C” to Mr. Del Rosario with a handwritten note, describing said Exhibit “C” as a draft.” (Exh. “5” – Viva; tsn pp. 23-24, June 08, 1992). The said draft has a well defined meaning.
…
Since Exhibit “C” is only a draft, or a tentative, provisional or preparatory writing prepared for discussion, the terms and conditions thereof could not have been previously agreed upon by ABS-CBN and Viva. Exhibit “C” could not therefore legally bind Viva, not having agreed thereto. In fact, Ms. Concio admitted that the terms and conditions embodied in Exhibit “C” were prepared by ABS-CBN’s lawyers and there was no discussion on said terms and conditions….
As the parties had not yet discussed the proposed terms and conditions in Exhibit “C,” and there was no evidence whatsoever that Viva agreed to the terms and conditions thereof, said document cannot be a binding contract. The fact that Viva refused to sign Exhibit “C” reveals only two [sic] well that it did not agree on its terms and conditions, and this court has no authority to compel Viva to agree thereto.
FIFTH. Mr. Lopez understand [sic] that what he and Mr. Del Rosario agreed upon at the Tamarind Grill was only provisional, in the sense that it was subject to approval by the Board of Directors of Viva. He testified:
Q    Now, Mr. Witness, and after that Tamarinf meeting … the second meeting wherein you claimed that you have the meeting of the minds between you and Mr. Vic del Rosario, what happened?
A    Vic Del Rosario was supposed to call us up and tell us specifically the result of the discussion with the Board of Directors.
Q    And you are referring to the so-called agreement which you wrote in [sic] a piece of paper?
A    Yes, sir.
Q    So, he was going to forward that to the board of Directors for approval?
A    Yes, sir (Tsn, pp. 42-43, June 8, 1992)
…
Q    Did Mr. Del Rosario tell you that he will submit it to his Board for approval?
A    Yes, sir. (Tsn, p. 69, June 8, 1992).
The above testimony of Mr. Lopez shows beyond doubt that he knew Mr. Del Rosario had no authority to bind Viva to a contract with ABS-CBN until and unless its Board of Directors approved it. The complaint, in fact, alleges that Mr. Del Rosario “is the Executive Producer of defendant Viva” which “is a corporation.” (par. 2, complaint). As a mere agent of Viva, Del Rosario could not bind Viva unless what he did is ratified by its Directors. (Vicente vs.Geraldez, 52 SCRA 210; Arnold vs. Willets and Paterson, 44 Phil. 634). As a mere agent, recognized as such by plaintiff, Del Rosario could not be held liable jointly and severally with Viva and his inclusion as party defendant has no legal basis. (Salonga vs. Warner Barnes [sic],COLTA, 88 Phil. 125; Salmon vs. Tan, 36 Phil. 556).
The testimony of Mr. Lopez and the allegations in the complaint are clear admissions that what was supposed to have been agreed upon at the Tamarind Grill between Mr. Lopez and Del Rosario was not a binding agreement. It is as it should be because corporate power to enter into a contract is lodged in the Board of Directors. (Sec. 23, Corporation Code). Without such board approval by the Viva board, whatever agreement Lopez and Del Rosario arrived at could not ripen into a valid binding upon Viva (Yao Ka Sin Trading vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 763). The evidence adduced shows that the Board of Directors of Viva rejected Exhibit “C” and insisted that the film package for 104 films be maintained (Exh. “7-1 – Cica).[49]
The contention that ABS-CBN had yet to fully exercise its right of first refusal over twenty-four films under the 1990 Film Exhibition Agreement and that the meeting between Lopez and Del Rosario was a continuation of said previous contract is untenable. As observed by the trial court, ABS-CBN’s right of first refusal had already been exercised when Ms. Concio wrote to Viva ticking off ten films. Thus:
[T]he subsequent negotiation with ABS-CBN two (2) months after this letter was sent, was for an entirely different package. Ms. Concio herself admitted on cross-examination to having used or exercised the right of first refusal. She stated that the list was not acceptable and was indeed not accepted by ABS-CBN, (Tsn, June 8, 1992, pp. 8-10). Even Mr. Lopez himself admitted that the right of first refusal may have been already exercised by Ms. Concio (as she had). (TSN, June 8, 1992, pp. 71-75). Del Rosario himself knew and understand [sic] that ABS-CBN has lost its right of first refusal when his list of 36 titles were rejected (Tsn, June 9, 1992, pp. 10-11).[50]
II
However, we find for ABS-CBN on the issue of damages. We shall first take up actual damages. Chapter 2, Title XVIII, Book IV of the Civil Code is the specific law on actual or compensatory damages. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to compensation for actual damages only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.[51] The indemnification shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits that the obligee failed to obtain.[52] In contracts and quasi-contracts the damages which may be awarded are dependent on whether the obligor acted with good faith or otherwise. In case of good faith, the damages recoverable are those which are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time of the constitution of the obligation. If the obligor acted with fraud, bad faith, malice, or wanton attitude, he shall be responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation.[53] In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendants shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, whether or not such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.[54]
Actual damages may likewise be recovered for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury, or for injury to the plaintiff’s business standing or commercial credit.[55]
The claim of RBS for actual damages did not arise from contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. It arose from the fact of filing of the complaint despite ABS-CBN’s alleged knowledge of lack of cause of action. Thus paragraph 12 of RBS’s Answer with Counterclaim and Cross-claim under the heading COUNTERCLAIM specifically alleges:
12. ABS-CBN filed the complaint knowing fully well that it has no cause of action against RBS. As a result thereof, RBS suffered actual damages in the amount of P6,621,195.32.[56]
Needless to state the award of actual damages cannot be comprehended under the above law on actual damages. RBS could only probably take refuge under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code, which read as follows:
ART. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of hid rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
ART. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.
ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
It may further be observed that in cases where a writ of preliminary injunction is issued, the damages which the defendant may suffer by reason of the writ are recoverable from the injunctive bond.[57] In this case, ABS-CBN had not yet filed the required bond; as a matter of fact, it asked for reduction of the bond and even went to the Court of Appeals to challenge the order on the matter. Clearly then, it was not necessary for RBS to file a counterbond. Hence, ABS-CBN cannot be held responsible for the premium RBS paid for the counterbond.
Neither could ABS-CBN be liable for the print advertisements for “Maging Sino Ka Man” for lack of sufficient legal basis. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order and later, a writ of preliminary injunction on the basis of its determination that there existed sufficient ground for the issuance thereof. Notably, the RTC did not dissolve the injunction on the ground of lack of legal and factual basis, but because of the plea of RBS that it be allowed to put up a counterbond.
As regards attorney’s fees, the law is clear that in the absence of stipulation, attorney’s fees may be recovered as actual or compensatory damages under any of the circumstances provided for in Article 2208 of the Civil Code.[58]
The general rule is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[59] They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court t award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification.[60] Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.[61]
As to moral damages the law is Section 1, Chapter 3, Title XVIII, Book IV of the Civil Code. Article 2217 thereof defines what are included in moral damages, while Article 2219 enumerates the cases where they may be recovered. Article 2220 provides that moral damages may be recovered in breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. RBS’s claim for moral damages could possibly fall only under item (10) of Article 2219, thereof which reads:
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.
Moral damages are in the category of an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer.[62] The award is not meant to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant, but to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. It is aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted.[63] Trial courts must then guard against the award of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced restrained and measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to passion, prejudice, or corruption or the part of the trial court.[64]
The award of moral damages cannot be granted in favor of a corporation because, being an artificial person and having existence only in legal contemplation, it has no feelings, no emotions, no senses. It cannot, therefore, experience physical suffering and mental anguish, which can be experienced only by one having a nervous system.[65] The statement in People v. Manero[66] and Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB[67] that a corporation may recover moral damages if it “has a good reputation that is debased, resulting in social humiliation” is an obiter dictum. On this score alone the award for damages must be set aside, since RBS is a corporation.
The basic law on exemplary damages is Section 5 Chapter 3, Title XVIII, Book IV of the Civil Code. These are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages.[68] They are recoverable in criminal cases as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances;[69] in quasi-delicts, if the defendant acted with gross negligence;[70] and in contracts and quasi-contracts, if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.[71]
It may be reiterated that the claim of RBS against ABS-CBN is not based on contract, quasi-contract, delict, or quasi-delict. Hence, the claims for moral and exemplary damages can only be based on Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code.
The elements of abuse of right under Article 19 are the following: (1) the existence of a legal right or duty, (2) which is exercised in bad faith, and (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the general sanction for all provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction; while Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following elements: (1) there is an act which is legal, (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy, and (3) and it is done with intent to injure.[72]
Verily then, malice or bad faith is at the core of Articles 19, 20, and 21. Malice or bad faith implies a conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.[73] Such must be substantiated by evidence.[74]
There is no adequate proof that ABS-CBN was inspired by malice or bad faith. It was honestly convinced of the merits of its cause after it had undergone serious negotiations culminating in its formal submission of a draft contract. Settled is the rule that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful and subject the actor to damages, for the law could not have meant impose a penalty on the right to litigate. If damages result from a person’s exercise of a right, it is damnum absque injuria.[75]
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44125 is hereby REVERSED except as to unappealed award of attorney’s fees in favor of VIVA Productions, Inc.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, Kapunan, Martinez, and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Sa T-SHIRT ni Johnsen..

2004-07-27T23:24:00.000+08:00

Maganda daw ang CCP..

2004-07-27T23:15:00.000+08:00

Take a second look..

Get WELL soon Jhonsen!

2004-07-27T23:06:00.000+08:00

Sabi naman sayo, wag kang magpapaulan, magkapote ka..

Over-used brains

2004-07-25T22:50:00.000+08:00

>From the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS

MOSCOW-Doctors are blaming a rare electrical imbalance in the brain forthe bizarre death of a chess player whose head literally exploded in themiddle of a championship game! No one else was hurt the fatal explosionbut four players and three officials at the Moscow Candidate ChessChampionships were sprayed with blood and brain matter when NikolaiTitov's head suddenly blew apart.

Experts say he suffered from a condition called Hyper-CerebralElectrosis or HCE. "He was deep in concentration with his eyes focusedon the board," says Titov's opponent, Vladimir Dobrynin.

"All of a sudden his hands flew to his temples and he screamed in pain.Everyone looked up from their games, startled by the noise. Then, as ifsomeone had put a bomb in his cranium, his head popped like afirecracker.

"Incredibly, Titiov's is not the first case in which a person's headspontaneously exploded. Five people are known to have died of HCE in thelast 25 years. The other incident occurred just occured in 1991, whenEuropean psychic Barbara Nicole's skull burst.

Miss Nicole's story was reported by newspapers worldwide, including WWN.

"HCE is an extremely rare physical imbalance," said Dr. AnatolyMartinenko, famed neurologist and expert on the human brain who did theautopsy on the brilliant chess expert. "It is a condition in which thecircuits of the brain become overloaded by the body's own electricity.The explosions happen during periods of intense mental activity whenlots of current is surging through the brain.

"Victims are highly intelligent people with great powers ofconcentration. Both Miss Nicole and Mr. Titov were intense people whotended to keep those cerebral circuits overloaded.

In a way it could be said they were literally too smart for their owngood." Although Dr. Martinenko says there are probably many undiagnosedcases, he hastens to add that very few people will die from HCE."

Most people who have it will never know. At this point, medicalscience still doesn't know much about HCE. And since fatalities are sorare it will probably be years before research money becomesavailable.

"In the meantime, the doctor urges people to take it easy and not thinktoo hard for long periods of time. "Take frequent relaxation breakswhen you're doing things that take lots of mental focus," herecommends.

Although HCE is very rare, it can kill. Dr. Martinenko says knowing youhave the condition can greatly improve your odds of surviving it.

A "yes" answer to any three of the following seven questions could meanthat you have HCE: So people react react to this!

1. Does your head sometimes ache when you think too hard? (Head paincan indicate overloaded brain circuits.)

2. Do you ever hear a faint ringing or humming sound in your ears? (Itcould be the sound of electricity in the skull cavity.)

3. Do you sometimes find yourself unable to get a thought out of yourhead? (This is a possible sign of too much electrical activity in thecerebralcortex.) What about those who are deeply in love?

4. Do you spend more than five hours a day reading, balancing yourcheckbook, or other thoughtful activity? (A common symptom of HCE is atendency to over-use the brain.) ("Boss, I might over-use my brain...")

5. When you get angry or frustrated do you feel pressure in yourtemples? (Friends of people who died of HCE say the victims oftencomplained of head pressure in times of strong emotion.)

6. Do you ever overeat on ice cream, doughnuts and other sweets? (A craving for sugar is typical of people with too much electrical pressurein the cranium.) (Oh no!)

7. Do you tend to analyze yourself too much? (HCE sufferers are oftenintrospective, "over-thinking" their lives.)

(NOT YET PROVEN)

ITSUMO

2004-07-25T22:29:00.000+08:00

by Dice & K9

(Dice)
Juz' call me first born, you're my first love,
You're my 1st kiss from up above.
And I don't care if you don't give love back
Coz' n my heart is where your ass is at.
I love your eyes , your nose & your tender lips,
Wanna kiss your neck, your shoulders to your finger tips.
I go crazy when you shake those sexy hips.
Baby girl you're the 1 I can't resist.
You know I love you from the very start,
I don't care if you break my heart.
I'm the man & I'm here for you,
believe me coz' my love is true.

*CHORUS:
(Sashi)
Itsumo kokoro we hoshi itstuka
Dare katu mata koi nei utchitimu
Itsumo kokoro nei eiro itsumo
Anata dake no basho ga aru kara

(K9)
You wanna get down with k-n-i-n-e,
make sure that's pure l-o-v-e
Never talk about the i-c-e
coz' I only got my h-e-a-r-t for y-o-u
I can't pay the bills for dinner,
I juz' give them my IOU
For sure, I'm not after f-u-c-k,
got no b-a-d intentions don't wanna play girl,
Maybe we might spot a UFO,
wait, that's not part of the rhyme juz' felt like sayin' so
You gotta know that I love from the start till f-o-r-e-v-e-r.

*Repeat chorus
(Dice)
Baby girl be my first lady,
be the mom of my first baby
You didn't like me when you first show me,
I'll be gentle I'll do it slowly.

(K9)
Girl, I think it's better if you was with me,
I got doe coz' I juz' won the spelling bee
For you, I got all the t-i-m-e
Ask mommies to pass but I'm not so sure
Juz' doin' my on thing,
shits more expensive than your fancy gold rings,
I don't mean dissin' coz' I gots to go there, mommies don't care,
All for them ladies, even chicks with nose rings.

*Repeat chorus 2x

wala lang...

2004-07-25T14:46:00.000+08:00

> > >-The guy in the photo went to the Sundarbans with his
> > >friends
> > >and
> > >he asked 1 of his friends to take his picture in that
> > >very
> > >place.
> > >While
> > >his friend was taking the picture he screamed and
> > >fainted, 2
> > >days
> > >later he died in the medical college. Doctors said he
> > >died
> > >because
> > >of
> > >heart attack.
> > >When the photos were exposed, in the last photo there was
> > >a
> > >lady
> > >standing right beside him though friends claim that he
> > >was
> > >standing
> > >alone.
> > >Many people said it is a rumor and the picture is the
> > >result of
> > >the
> > >blessings of latest technology. However, the photo itself
> > >is
> > >very
> > >scary and I'm sure you'll also feel the same way I've
> > >felt.
> > >Here you go with the photo!!!
> > >(See attached file: pic27625.jpg)

www.ImageShack.us" />

mystery room

2004-07-21T10:11:00.000+08:00

sorry magkamali ng post eto try ko ulit....

IECEP-NSC General Assembly

2004-07-21T08:41:00.000+08:00

8am,Saturday, 24July2004

PUP-Taguig
(From road opposite SM Bicutan, take Tricycle to the school)
Fee: Php70.xx
Agenda: Pls see posting at AECES bulletin board.
See you there!!

Birth Month

2004-07-21T08:29:00.000+08:00

JANUARY:Stubborn and hard-hearted. Ambitious and serious. Loves to teach and betaught. Always looking at people's flaws and weaknesses. Likes tocriticize. Hardworking andproductive. Smart, neat and organized. Sensitive and has deep thoughts.Knows how to make others happy. Quiet unless excited or tensed. Ratherreserved. Highly attentive. Resistant to illnesses but prone to colds.Romantic but has difficulties expressing love. Loves children. Loyal.Has great social abilities yet easily jealous. Very Stubborn and moneycautious.

FEBRUARY:Abstract thoughts. Loves reality and abstract. Intelligent andclever. Changing personality. Attractive. Sexy. Temperamental. Quiet, shyand humble. Honestand loyal. Determined to reach goals. Loves freedom. Rebellious whenrestricted. Loves aggressiveness. Too sensitive and easily hurt. Gets angryreally easily but thoes not show it. Dislike unnecessary things. Lovesmaking friends but rarelyshows it. Daring and stubborn. Ambitious. Realizing dreams and hopes. Sharp.Loves entertainment and leisure. Romantic on the inside not outside.Superstitious and ludicrous. Spendthrift. Tries to learn to show emotions.

MARCH:Attractive personality.sexy. Affectionate.Shy and reserved. Secretive.Naturally honest, generous and sympathetic. Loves peace and serenity.Sensitive to others. Loves to serve others. Easily angered. Trustworthy.Appreciative and returns kindness. Observant and assesses others.Revengeful. Loves to dream and fantasize. Loves traveling. Loves attention.Hasty decisions in choosing partners. Loves home decors. Musically talented.Loves special things. Moody.

APRIL:Active and dynamic. Decisive and haste but tends to regret.Attractive and affectionate to oneself. Strong mentality. Loves attention.Diplomatic. Consoling, friendly and solves people's problems. Brave andfearless. Adventurous. Loving and caring. Suave and generous. Emotional.Aggressive. Hasty. Good memory. Moving Motivates oneself and others.Sickness usually of the head and chest. Sexy in a way that only their luvercan see.

MAY:Stubborn and hard-hearted. Strong-willed and highly motivated. Sharpthoughts. Easily angered. Attracts others and loves attention. Deepfeelings. Beautiful physically and mentally. Firm Standpoint. Needs nomotivation. Easily consoled. Systematic (left brain). Loves to dream. Strongclairvoyance. Understanding. Sickness usually in the ear and neck. Goodimagination. Good physical. Weak breathing. Loves literature and the arts.Loves traveling. Dislike being at home. Restless. Not having many children.Hardworking. High spirited. Spendthrift.

JUNE:Thinks far with vision. Easily influenced by kindness. Polite andsoft-spoken. Having lots of ideas. Sensitive. Active mind. Hesitating, tendsto delay. Choosy and always wants the best. Temperamental. Funny andhumorous. Loves to joke. Good debating skills. Talkative. Daydreamer.Friendly. Knows how to make friends. Abiding. Able to show character. Easilyhurt. Prone to getting colds. Loves to dress up. Easily bored. Fussy. Seldomshows emotions. Takes time to recover when hurt. Brand conscious. Executive.Stubborn.

JULY:Fun to be with. Secretive. Difficult to fathom and to be understood.Quiet unless excited or tensed. Takes pride in oneself. Has reputation.Easily consoled. Honest. Concerned about people's feelings. Tactful.Friendly. Approachable. Emotional temperamental and unpredictable. Moody andeasily hurt. Witty and sparkly. Not revengeful. Forgiving but never forgets.Dislikes nonsensical and unnecessary things. Guides others physically andmentally. Sensitive and forms impressions carefully. Caring and loving.Treats others equally. Strong sense of sympathy. Wary and sharp. Judgespeople through observations. Hardworking. No difficulties in studying. Lovesto be alone. Always broods about the past and the old friends. Likes to bequiet. Homely person. Waits for friends. Never looks for friends. Notaggressive unless provoked. Prone to having stomach and dieting problems.Loves to be loved. Easily hurt but takes long to recover.

AUGUST:Loves to joke. Attractive. Suave and caring. Brave and fearless.Firm and has leadership qualities. Knows how to console others. Too generousand egoistic. Takes high pride of oneself. Thirsty for praises.Extraordinary spirit. Easily angered. Angry when provoked. Easily jealous.Observant. Careful and cautious. Thinks quickly. Independent thoughts. Lovesto lead and to be led. Loves to dream. Talented in the arts, music anddefense. Sensitive but not petty. Poor resistance against illnesses. Learnsto relax. Hasty and trusty. Romantic. Loving and caring. Loves to makefriends .

SEPTEMBER:Suave and compromising. Careful, cautious and organized. Likes topoint out people's mistakes. Likes to criticize. Stubborn. Quiet but ableto talkwell. Calm and cool. Kind and sympathetic. Concerned and detailed.Loyal but not always honest. Does work well. Very confident. Sensitive.Thinking generous. Good memory. Clever and knowledgeable. Loves to look forinformation. Must control oneself when criticizing. Able to motivateoneself. Understanding. Fun to be around. Secretive. Loves sports, leisureand traveling. Hardly shows emotions. Tends to bottle up feelings. Verychoosy, especially in relationships. Systematic.

OCTOBER:Loves to chat. Loves those who loves them. Loves to takes things atthe center. Inner and physical beauty. Lies but doesn'tpretend. Gets angry often. Treats friends importantly. Always making friends.Easily hurt but recovers easily. Daydreamer. Opinionated. Does not care ofwhat others think. Emotional. Decisive. Strong clairvoyance. Loves totravel, the arts and literature. Touchy and easily jealous. Concerned.Loves outdoors. Just and fair.Spendthrift. Easily influenced. Easily loses confidence. Loves children.

NOVEMBER:Has a lot of ideas. Difficult to fathom. Thinks forward. Uniqueand brilliant. Extraordinary ideas. Sharp thinking. Fine and strongclairvoyance. Can become good doctors. Dynamic in personality. Secretive.Inquisitive. Knows how to dig secrets. Always thinking. Less talkative butamiable. Brave and generous. Patient. Stubborn and hard-hearted. If there isa will, there is a way. Determined. Never give up. Hardly becomes angryunless provoked. Loves to be alone. Thinks differently from others.Sharp-minded. Motivates oneself. Does not appreciates praises.High-spirited. Well-built and tough. Deep love and emotions. Romantic.Uncertain in relationships. Homely. Hardworking. High abilities.Trustworthy. Honest and keeps secrets. Not able to control emotions.Unpredictable.

DECEMBER:Loyal and generous. Sexy. Patriotic. Active in games and interactions.Impatient and hasty. Ambitious. Influential in organizations. Fun to bewith. Loves to socialize. Loves praises. Loves attention. Loves to be loved.Honest and trustworthy. Not pretending. Short tempered. Changingpersonality. Not egoistic. Take high pride in oneself. Hates restrictions.Loves to joke. Good sense of humor.