Thus, under the order, SkyCable is obliged to return GMA-7 to channel 12 from channel 14 in its system on or before Dec. 8, 2003.
In its order released Nov. 28, the NTC, through commissioner Armi Jane Borje, directed respondent SkyCable to comply with its decision dated April 25, where the commission found the respondent "of having violated the provisions of Memorandum Circular 4-08-88 by arbitrarily changing channel assignments of KBP members’ TV stations."
In the April 25 decision, the NTC ordered the respondent "to carry the complainant KBP members’ TV signals on its CATV system on the channel numbers at which their stations are transmitting, except when technically unfeasible, in which case shall be assigned the next nearest channel which does not cause interference."
The NTC also asked the respondent to strictly comply with the provisions of NTC Memorandum Circular 4-08-88 and to cease from arbitrarily changing channel assignments without the approval of the commission.
SkyCable filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 25 decision, which the NTC denied in an order dated Aug. 27, 2003.
The KBP then filed a motion for the commission to impose the proper sanctions while GMA Network filed a motion to suspend or revoke respondent’s certificate of authority, licenses and permits to operate.
SkyCable, in its manifestation and motion dated Sept. 19, 2003, said it filed a petition to review the April 25 decision and the Aug. 27 order with the Court of Appeals and respondent requested the suspension of the execution of the decision and order until the CA has resolved the issues raised.
SkyCable, likewise filed an opposition arguing that the motion filed by the KBP is premature, considering that the April 25 decision and the Aug.27 order are now the subject of a pending petition for review before the Court of Appeals.
The NTC, however, found the respondent’s arguments without merit and cited as basis Sec. 5, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedures which states that the appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just.
The NTC also said that it has given the respondent enough opportunity to comply with its decision and order, which the latter ignored thereby leaving the commission with no choice but "to impose the appropriate sanction to make sure that its orders are not taken for granted."