martinez

PAULAINE MUECO MARTINEZ

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY,respondents.

FACTS:

Sometime in 1988, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) served on the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) assessment notices and demands for payment in connection to Section 40 (e) (f) and (g) of the Revised NTC Schedule of Fees and Charges. The PLDT challenged the assessments of the NTC. Then NTC rendered a Decision denying the protest of PLDT. On May 12, 1994, PLDT appealed to the Court of Appeals. The CA ordered the NTCto recompute its assessments and demands for payment. On November 20, 1996, NTC moved for partial reconsideration for the Decision of the CA with respect to the basis of the assessment under Section 40 (e) but the CA denied its motion. Thus, petitioner found its way to this court.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the computation of supervision and regulation fees under Section 40 (F) of the Public Service Act should be based on the par value of the subscribed capital stock.

HELD:

Yes. Concise and clear is the ruling of this Court in the case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Public Service Commission, 66 SCRA 341, that the basis for computation of the fee to be charged by NTC on PLDT, is " the capital stock subscribed or paid and not, alternatively, the property and equipment."The law in point is clear and categorical. There is no room for construction. It simply calls for application.It bears stressing that it is not the NTC that imposed such a fee. It is the legislature itself. Since Congress has the power to exercise the State inherent powers of Police Power, Eminent Domain and Taxation, the distinction between police power and the power to tax, which could be significant if the exercising authority were mere political subdivisions (since delegation by it to such political subdivisions of one power does not necessarily include the other), would not be of any moment when, as in the case under consideration, Congress itself exercises the power. All that is to be done would be to apply and enforce the law when sufficiently definitive and not constitutional infirm.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.