Court of Appeals asks NTC to respond to Digitel's petition

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals second division has asked the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to show cause why a petition for preliminary injunction filed by Digitel Mobile Philippines Inc. against an NTC order on the new per pulse billing system for mobile calls should not be granted.

In its resolution, the CA second division gave the NTC 10 days from receipt to file a comment, after which Digitel Mobile may file a reply within five days from receipt of the comment. It said action on the prayer for a temporary restraining order is held in abeyance pending the court’s receipt of NTC’s comment.

On the other hand, the CA seventh division denied an application for TRO filed by Connectivity Unlimited Resources Enterprise, a subsidiary of Smart Communications, but also gave the NTC 10 days to file a comment to CURE’s petition for preliminary injunction.

It was also learned that the separate petitions filed by Smart (certioration and prohibition with prayer for TRO) and Globe Telecom (appeal with petition for preliminary injunction and TRO application) involving certain NTC issuances on the new per pulse billing system have yet to be acted upon by the respective CA divisions handling the petitions. Sources said Smart has asked the CA to consolidate all petitions filed by the different telcos involving the same issue.

In both petitions of Digitel Mobile and CURE, the two cellular mobile telephone service (CMTS) providers questioned an NTC order dated Dec. 5, 2009 directing them to implement the six second per pulse unit of billing for both intra-network and inter-network calls, as well as separate show cause orders dated Dec. 9, 2009 finding the two companies guilty of violating the Dec. 5 order and directing them to cease and desist from charging their respective subscribers using the previous billing regime.

In the NTC cease and desist orders, the commission ordered the two telcos to immediately effect a refund to their subscribers for the difference between the old billing system and the new six second per pulse billing regime by means of rebate or credit.

In its petition before the CA, CURE said the assailed orders are unconstitutional and violative of its right to due process.