7/30/2019 Admin Group

1/4

G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989SOLID HOMES, INC., petitioner,vs.TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

CRUZ, J .:We are asked to reverse a decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the

jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City over a complaint filed by abuyer, the herein private respondent, against the petitioner, for delivery of title toa subdivision lot. The position of the petitioner, the defendant in that action, isthat the decision of the trial court is null and void ab initio because the caseshould have been heard and decided by what is now called the Housing andLand Use Regulatory Board.The complaint was filed on August 31, 1982, by Teresita Payawal against SolidHomes, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and docketed asCivil Case No. Q-36119. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant contracted tosell to her a subdivision lot in Marikina on June 9, 1975, for the agreed price of P28,080.00, and that by September 10, 1981, she had already paid the defendantthe total amount of P 38,949.87 in monthly installments and interests. SolidHomes subsequently executed a deed of sale over the land but failed to deliverthe corresponding certificate of title despite her repeated demands because, asit appeared later, the defendant had mortgaged the property in bad faith to a

financing company. The plaintiff asked for delivery of the title to the lot or,alternatively, the return of all the amounts paid by her plus interest. She alsoclaimed moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.Solid Homes moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court hadno jurisdiction, this being vested in the National Housing Authority under PD No.957. The motion was denied. The defendant repleaded the objection in itsanswer, citing Section 3 of the said decree providing that "the National Housing

Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade andbusiness in accordance with the provisions of this Decree." After trial, judgmentwas rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to deliver toher the title to the land or, failing this, to refund to her the sum of P 38,949.87plus interest from 1975 and until the full amount was paid. She was also

awarded P 5,000.00 moral damages, P 5,000.00 exemplary damages, P10,000.00 attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit.

1

Solid Homes appealed but the decision was affirmed by the respondentcourt,

2which also berated the appellant for its obvious efforts to evade a

legitimate obligation, including its dilatory tactics during the trial. The petitionerwas also reproved for its "gall" in collecting the further amount of P 1,238.47from the plaintiff purportedly for realty taxes and registration expenses despiteits inability to deliver the title to the land.In holding that the trial court had jurisdiction, the respondent court referred toSection 41 of PD No. 957 itself providing that:

SEC. 41. Other remedies.-The rights and remedies provided inthis Decree shall be in addition to any and all other rights and

remedies that may be available under existing laws.and declared that "its clear and unambiguous tenor undermine(d) the(petitioner's) pretension that the court a quowas bereft of jurisdiction." The

decision also dismissed the contrary opinion of the Secretary of Justice asimpinging on the authority of the courts of justice. While we are disturbed by thefindings of fact of the trial court and the respondent court on the dubious conductof the petitioner, we nevertheless must sustain it on the jurisdictional issue.The applicable law is PD No. 957, as amended by PD No. 1344, entitled"Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writs of Execution in theEnforcement of Its Decisions Under Presidential Decree No. 957." Section 1 ofthe latter decree provides as follows:

SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to regulate the realestate trade and business and in addition to its powers providedfor in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National Housing

Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decidecases of the following nature:

A. Unsound real estate business practices;B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed bysubdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the projectowner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; andC. Cases involving specific performance of contractualastatutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot orcondominium unit against the owner, developer, dealer, brokeror salesman. (Emphasis supplied.)

The language of this section, especially the italicized portions, leaves no room

for doubt that "exclusive jurisdiction" over the case between the petitioner andthe private respondent is vested not in the Regional Trial Court but in theNational Housing Authority.

3

The private respondent contends that the applicable law is BP No. 129, whichconfers on regional trial courts jurisdiction to hear and decide cases mentionedin its Section 19, reading in part as follows:

SEC. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases.-Regional Trial Courts shallexercise exclusive original jurisdiction:(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation isincapable of pecuniary estimation;(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,real property, or any interest therein, except actions for forcible

entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, originaljurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan TrialCourts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit TrialCourts;xxx xxx xxx

(8) In all other cases in which the demand, exclusive of interestand cost or the value of the property in controversy, amounts tomore than twenty thousand pesos (P 20,000.00).

It stresses, additionally, that BP No. 129 should control as the later enactment,having been promulgated in 1981, after PD No. 957 was issued in 1975 and PDNo. 1344 in 1978.

This construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict betweena general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates oftheir enactment. Thus, it has been held that-

7/30/2019 Admin Group

2/4

The fact that one law is special and the other general creates apresumption that the special act is to be considered asremaining an exception of the general act, one as a general lawof the land and the other as the law of the particular case.

4

xxx xxx xxxThe circumstance that the special law is passed before or afterthe general act does not change the principle. Where thespecial law is later, it will be regarded as an exception to, or aqualification of, the prior general act; and where the general actis later, the special statute will be construed as remaining an

exception to its terms, unless repealed expressly or bynecessary implication.

5

It is obvious that the general law in this case is BP No. 129 and PD No. 1344 thespecial law.The argument that the trial court could also assume jurisdiction because ofSection 41 of PD No. 957, earlier quoted, is also unacceptable. We do not readthat provision as vesting concurrent jurisdiction on the Regional Trial Court andthe Board over the complaint mentioned in PD No. 1344 if only because grantsof power are not to be lightly inferred or merely implied. The only purpose of thissection, as we see it, is to reserve. to the aggrieved party such other remediesas may be provided by existing law, like a prosecution for the act complained ofunder the Revised Penal Code.

6

On the competence of the Board to award damages, we find that this is part ofthe exclusive power conferred upon it by PD No. 1344 to hear and decide"claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot orcondominium unit buyers against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker orsalesman." It was therefore erroneous for the respondent to brush aside thewell-taken opinion of the Secretary of Justice that-

Such claim for damages which the subdivision/condominiumbuyer may have against the owner, developer, dealer orsalesman, being a necessary consequence of an adjudication ofliability for non-performance of contractual or statutoryobligation, may be deemed necessarily included in the phrase"claims involving refund and any other claims" used in the

aforequoted subparagraph C of Section 1 of PD No. 1344. Thephrase "any other claims" is, we believe, sufficiently broad toinclude any and all claims which are incidental to or a necessaryconsequence of the claims/cases specifically included in thegrant of jurisdiction to the National Housing Authority under thesubject provisions.The same may be said with respect to claims for attorney's feeswhich are recoverable either by agreement of the parties orpursuant to Art. 2208 of the Civil Code (1) when exemplarydamages are awarded and (2) where the defendant acted ingross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff 'splainly valid, just and demandable claim.

xxx xxx xxxBesides, a strict construction of the subject provisions of PD No.1344 which would deny the HSRC the authority to adjudicate

claims for damages and for damages and for attorney's feeswould result in multiplicity of suits in that the subdivisioncondominium buyer who wins a case in the HSRC and who isthereby deemed entitled to claim damages and attorney's feeswould be forced to litigate in the regular courts for the purpose,a situation which is obviously not in the contemplation of thelaw. (Emphasis supplied.)

7

As a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has becomenecessary to create more and more administrative bodies to help in theregulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular fields assigned to

them, they can deal with the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatchthan can be expected from the legislature or the courts of justice. This is thereason for the increasing vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers inwhat is now not unreasonably called the fourth department of the government.Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be liberallyconstrued to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance withthe legislative purpose.

8Following this policy in Antipolo Realty Corporation v.

National Housing Authority,9

the Court sustained the competence of therespondent administrative body, in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdictionvested in it by PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344, to determine the rights of theparties under a contract to sell a subdivision lot.It remains to state that, contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the case of

Tropical Homes v. National Housing Authority 10 is not in point. We upheld inthat case the constitutionality of the procedure for appeal provided for in PD No.1344, but we did not rule there that the National Housing Authority and not theRegional Trial Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the cases enumerated inSection I of the said decree. That is what we are doing now.It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity andmay be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court.

11The only

exception is where the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel,12

whichdoes not appear in the case before us. On the contrary, the issue was raised asearly as in the motion to dismiss filed in the trial court by the petitioner, whichcontinued to plead it in its answer and, later, on appeal to the respondent court.We have no choice, therefore, notwithstanding the delay this decision will entail,

to nullify the proceedings in the trial court for lack of jurisdiction.WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the respondent court is REVERSEDand the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-36119 is SET ASIDE, without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate complaintbefore the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. No costs.SO ORDERED.Narvasa, Gancayco, Gri;o-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

7/30/2019 Admin Group

3/4

G.R. No. 160703 September 23, 2005GMA NETWORK, INC., Petitioners,vs.ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, CENTRAL CATV, INC., PILIPINO CABLECORPORATION and PHILIPPINE HOME CABLE HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent.D E C I S I O N

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:Petitioner GMA Network, Inc. ("GMA") filed on May 6, 2003 before the Regional Trial Court ofQuezon City a complaint for damages

1against respondents ABS-CBN Broadcasting

Corporation ("ABS-CBN"), Central CATV, Inc. ("SkyCable"), Philippine Home Cable Holdings,Inc. ("Home Cable") and Pilipino Cable Corporation ("Sun Cable"), which was raffled to Branch97

2and docketed as Civil Case No. Q03-49500.

In its complaint, GMA alleged that respondents engaged in unfair competition when the cablecompanies arbitrarily re-channeled petitioners cable television broadcast on February 1, 2003,in order to arrest and destroy its upswing performance in the television industry.GMA argued that respondents were able to perpetrate such unfair business practice through acommon ownership and interlocking businesses. SkyCable and Sun Cable are wholly-ownedsubsidiaries of Sky Vision Corporation ("Sky Vision") which is allegedly controlled by Lopez,Inc. On the other hand, Home Cable is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilink CommunicationsCorporation ("Unilink"), which is owned by Mediaquest Holdings, Inc., a company controlled bythe Pension Trust Fund of the PLDT Employees ("PLDT Group").Pursuant to a Master Consolidation Agreement, the ownership, rights and interests in SkyVision and Unilink were purportedly placed under a holding company known as "BeyondCable", 66.5 % of which is owned by the Benpres Group, composed of Lopez Inc., BenpresHoldings and ABS-CBN, while 33.5% thereof is owned by the PLDT Group. As a result of thisbusiness combination, respondents have cornered at least 71% of the total cable television

market in Mega Manila. They are thus able to dictate the signal transmission, channel position,and the airing of shows, programs, and broadcast of non-cable companies like ABS-CBN andGMA, which the law requires them to carry.GMA alleged that the re-channeling of its cable television broadcast resulted in damage to itsbusiness operations, thus:...17. Following their arbitrary act of re-channeling the cable position of plaintiff GMA from"Channel 12" to "Channel 14", the defendants "SkyCable" and Pilipino Cable (or "Sun Cable")deliberately failed to transmit the signal of plaintiff GMA to their channels in clear audiotransmission resulting in noticeable dropouts and spillover of extraneous sound and in clearvisual transmission resulting in distorted and/or degraded visual presentation;18. Soon thereafter, numerous complaints of distortions, degradations and disorders of GMAsshows on the cable channels were received by plaintiff GMA from subscribers of the defendantcable companies "SkyCable", "Home Cable" and "Sun Cable", such as "snowy reception", "no

signal", and "no audio". These complaints escalated to alarming proportions when plaintiffGMA made public the audio and visual distortions of its TV shows on the cable channels;19. The audio disorder and the visual distortion and/or degradation of plaintiff GMAs signaltransmission happened mostly during the showing of plaintiff GMAs top rating programs;19.1. These distortions did not occur in the cable TV shows of defendant ABS-CBN on thechannels of the co-defendant cable companies;20. It is a matter of common knowledge, and defendants are fully aware, that the quality ofsignal and audio transmission and established channel position in cable TV of a non-cabletelevision network, like plaintiff GMA, are crucial factors in arriving at the ratings of the networkand its programs and which ratings are, in turn, determinative of the business judgment ofcommercial advertisers, producers and blocktimers to sign broadcast contracts with thenetwork, which contracts are the lifeblood of TV networks and stations like plaintiff GMA;20.1. Defendants are also aware that 50% of so-called "people meter" which is a device usedby the ratings suppliers (AGB Philippines and AC Nielsen) to determine the ratings and

audience shares of TV programs are placed in cable TV.20.2. These unjust, high-handed and unlawful acts of the defendants adversely affected theviewership, quality of the programs, and ratings of plaintiff GMA for which defendants areliable;

...22. As a result of defendants acts of unfair competition, corporate combinations andmanipulations as well as unjust, oppressive, high-handed and unlawful business practices,plaintiff suffered business interruptions and injury in its operations for which it should becompensated in the amount of P10Million by way of actual and compensatory damages[.]

3

On July 15, 2003, SkyCable and Sun Cable moved for dismissal of the complaint on thegrounds oflitis pendentiaand forum-shopping since there was a similar case pending beforethe National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) entitled "GMA Network, Inc. v. CentralCATV, Inc., Philippine Home Cable Holdings, Inc., and Pilipino Cable Corporation". The case,docketed as NTC ADM Case No. 2003-085, allegedly involved the same cause of action andthe same parties, except for ABS-CBN. SkyCable and Sun Cable also asserted that it is theNTC that has primary jurisdiction over the issues raised in the complaint. Moreover, GMA hadno cause of action against the two entities and failed to exhaust administrative remedies.4On July 17, 2003, Home Cable filed anAnswer with Compulsory Counterclaims

5pleading, as

affirmative defenses, the same matters alleged in the motion to dismiss of SkyCable and SunCable. ABS-CBN also filed anAnswer with Compulsory Counterclaims

6contending that GMA

had no cause of action against it and that the complaint failed to state any.GMA opposed the motion to dismiss

7and filed a Replyto the answer of Home Cable

8and

ABS-CBN.9A preliminary hearing was held on the motion to dismiss as well as the affirmative

defenses.In due course, the trial court issued the assailed resolution

10dismissing the complaint. The trial

court held that the resolution of the legal issues raised in the complaint required thedetermination of highly technical, factual issues over which the NTC had primary jurisdiction.

Additionally, it held that GMA had no cause of action against ABS-CBN because:... It is evident that plaintiffs cause of action is against the cable companies and not against

ABS-CBN since it does not establish that defendant ABS-CBN had a hand in the re-channeling

of plaintiffs cable transmission because essentially defendant ABS -CBN is similarly situatedas plaintiff. The mere fact that the people behind ABS-CBN is allegedly the same people whoare at the helm of these cable companies, and thus were "engaged in unfair competitionand/or unfair trade practices" is a conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirement thatthe plaintiff state "ultimate facts" in asserting its cause of action.

11

Hence, this petition filed by GMA under Section 2(c), Rule 41 in relation to Rule 45 of theRules of Court, asserting that:

ATHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE NTC HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTIONOVER PETITIONERS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND IN DISMISSING THE CASE FORLACK OF JURISDICTION.BTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS COMPLAINT STATES NOCAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT ABS-CBN.

12

GMA asserts that the resolution of the issues raised in the complaint does not entail highlytechnical matters requiring the expertise of the NTC. Petitioner insists that the subject matterof the complaint merely involves respondents wrongful acts of unfair competition and/or unfairtrade practices resulting to damages, jurisdiction over which lies with the regular courts andnot the NTC.We disagree.GMAs complaint for damages is based on the alleged arbitrary re -channeling of its broadcastover the cable companies television systems, thereby resulting in the distortion anddegradation of its video and audio signals. The re-channeling was allegedly made possiblethrough the common ownership and interlocking businesses of respondent corporations andwas designed to thwart petitioners upswing performance in the television ratings game. Inother words, the wrongful acts complained of and upon which the damages prayed for arebased, have to do with the operations and ownership of the cable companies. These factualmatters undoubtedly pertain to the NTC and not the regular courts.

That the matters complained of by GMA are within the NTCs exclus ive domain can bediscerned from the statutes governing the broadcasting and cable television industry. Section15 of Executive Order No. 546,

13by which the NTC was created, provides for its general

functions as follows:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt1

7/30/2019 Admin Group

4/4

a. Issue Certificate of Public Convenience for the operation of communications utilities andservices, radio communications systems, wire or wireless telephone or telegraph system, radioand television broadcasting system and other similar public utilities;b. Establish, prescribe and regulate areas of operation of particular operators of public servicecommunications; and determine and prescribe charges or rates pertinent to the operation ofsuch public utility facilities and services except in cases where charges or rates areestablished by international bodies or associations of which the Philippines is a participatingmember or by bodies recognized by the Philippine Government as the proper arbiter of suchcharges or rates;...g. Promulgate such rules and regulations, as public safety and interest may require, toencourage a larger and more effective use of communications, radio and televisionbroadcasting facilities, and to maintain effective competition among private entities in theseactivities whenever the Commission finds it reasonably feasible[.]In 1987, Executive Order No. 205

14was issued which empowers the NTC to grant certificates

of authority for the operation of cable antenna television system subject to the limitation thatthe authority to operate shall not infringe on the television and broadcast markets. ExecutiveOrder No. 436

15issued in 1997, specifically vests the NTC with the sole power of regulation

and supervision over the cable television industry.In Batangas CATV, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

16we held that the NTCs regulatory power over

the broadcasting and cable television industry extends to matters which are peculiarly within itscompetence. These include the: (1) determination of rates, (2) issuance of certificates ofauthority, (3) establishment of areas of operation, (4) examination and assessment of thelegal, technical and financial qualifications of applicant operators, (5) granting of permits for theuse of frequencies, (6) regulation of ownership and operation, (7) adjudication of issuesarising from its functions, and (8) other similar matters.

17With respect to the foregoing,

therefore, the NTC exercises exclusive, original and primary jurisdiction to the exclusion of theregular courts.In the case at bar, before the trial court can resolve the issue of whether GMA is entitled to anaward of damages, it would have to initially ascertain whether there was arbitrary re-channeling which distorted and downgraded GMAs signal. The ascertainment of these facts,which relate to the operations of the cable companies, would require the application oftechnical standards imposed by the NTC as well as determination of signal quality "within thelimitations imposed by the technical state of the art" .

18These factual questions would

necessarily entail specialized knowledge in the fields of communications technology andengineering which the courts do not possess. It is the NTC which has the expertise and skillsto deal with such matters.The regulation of ownership of television and cable television companies is likewise within theexclusive concern of the NTC, pursuant to its broader regulatory power of ensuring andpromoting a "larger and more effective use of communications, radio and television

broadcasting facilities" in order that the public interest may well be served. The NTC ismandated to maintain effective competition among private entities engaged in the operation ofpublic service communications. It is also the agency tasked to grant certificates of authority tocable television operators, provided that the same "does not infringe on the television andbroadcast markets."

As such, GMAs allegations of unlawful business combination and unjust business practicesalso properly pertain to the NTC. It is in the best position to judge matters relating to thebroadcasting industry as it is presumed to have an unparalleled understanding of its marketand commercial conditions. Moreover, it is the NTC that has the information, statistics anddata peculiar to the television broadcasting industry. It is thus the body that is ideally suited toact on petitioners allegations of market control and manipulation.In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,

19the Court held that:

It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case, whichmeans that the matter involved is also judicial in character. However, if the case is such that its

determination requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the properadministrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved,then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will besupplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. This is

the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. It applies "where a claim is originally cognizable in thecourts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution ofissues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence ofan administrative body; in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of suchissues to the administrative body for its v iew[.]

20

Consequently, while it is true that the regular courts are possessed of general jurisdiction overactions for damages, it would nonetheless be proper for the courts to yield its jurisdiction infavor of an administrative body when the determination of underlying factual issues requiresthe special competence or knowledge of the latter. In this era of clogged court dockets,administrative boards or commissions with special knowledge, experience and capability topromptly hear and determine disputes on technical matters or intricate questions of facts,subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, are well nigh indispensable.Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, therefore, the unmistakabletrend is to refer it to the former.

21

In this regard, we note that there is a pending case before the NTC in which the factual issuesraised in petitioners complaint have also been pleaded. Although petitioner prays in the NTCcase for the administrative remedy of cancellation of the cable companies certificates ofauthority, licenses and permits, it is inevitable that, in granting or denying this prayer, the NTCwould have to pass upon the same factual issues posed in petitioners complaint before thetrial court. The latter was thus correct in applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction if only toavoid conflicting factual findings between the court and the NTC.Finally, the complaint failed to state a cause of action against ABS-CBN and the otherrespondents, considering that the ultimate facts upon which the complaint for damagesdepends fall within the technical competence of an administrative body. Otherwise stated,pending determination by the NTC of the factual questions involved in the case, petitionerscomplaint, which is founded upon such factual issues, would be premature.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed resolution dated October 30, 2003 of theRegional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 97, is AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_160703_2005.html#fnt14