PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION vs. NTC and PLDT

G.R. No. L-63318; August 18, 1984

Ponente: Makasiar

Topic:  Statutory interpretation

Doctrine:  The word used in the law must be given its ordinary meaning, unless a contrary intent is manifest in the law itself.

FACTS:

Respondent NTC promulgated a decision (NTC decision) dated November 22, 1982 which approved a revised schedule of rates (translation: phone bills went up) which was within the limits of P.D. No. 217, the law which regulated the telephone industry.  Petitioner, Philippine Consumer Foundation (PCF) filed this petition seeking to annul this decision. 

On November 25, 1983, the Supreme Court promulgated a decision annulling the NTC decision.  This decision interpreted the following phraseology of Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 as mandatory:

“The Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, through its Board of Communications and/or appropriate agency shall see to it that the herein declared policies for the telephone industry are immediately implemented and for this purpose, pertinent rules and regulations may be promulgated” (italics supplied).

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Section 2 of P.D. No. 217 is mandatory.

HELD:

The basic canon of Statutory Construction is that the word used in the law must be given its ordinary meaning, unless the contrary intent is manifested.  The phrase “may be promulgated” cannot be construed to mean “shall” or “must”.  Section 2 must therefore be interpreted in its ordinary sense as permissive or discretionary and not mandatory on the part of the delegate, NTC.

What is mandatory however, is the immediate implementation of the policies declared in P.D. No. 217.

Note that both words “shall” and “may be” are used in the same section which demonstrates that the ordinary, usual or normal distinction between these words is preserved.

It must be emphasized that P.D. No. 217 [which is a special law] only repeals pertinent portions of Act 3436 and the Public Service Act [which is a general law regulating all manner of public franchises] and that the Board of Communications, the immediate predecessor of the NTC was adequately served by their own rules of procedure.  This meant that the acts complained of by NCF, i.e. the fixing of provisional rates without public hearing (Section 16 of the public service act), was a valid act.

DECISION:

WHEREFORE, THE DECISION OF NOVEMBER 25, 1983 IS HEREBY RECONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE AND THE PETTION IS HEREBY DISMISSED.