PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATION SATELLITE CORP.

VS ALCUAZ

FACTS:
By virtue of RA No. 5514, PHILCOMSAT was granted "a franchise to establish, construct,
maintain and operate in the Philippines, at such places as the grantee may select, station or
stations and associated equipment and facilities for international satellite communications."
Under this franchise, it was likewise granted the authority to "construct and operate such
ground facilities as needed to deliver telecommunications services from the communications
satellite system and ground terminal or terminals. "Pursuant to said franchise, petitioner,
since 1967, has established its earth stations and antennas to provide direct satellite
communication. Since 1968, the petitioner has been leasing its satellite circuits to different
telephone, cable, and radio companies. Executive Order No. 196 placed the petitioner under
the jurisdiction, control and regulation of respondent NTC, including all its facilities and
services and the fixing of rates. Petitioner filed with respondent NTC an application for
authority to continue operating and maintaining the same facilities it has been continuously
operating and maintaining since 1967, to continue providing the international satellite
communications services it has likewise been providing since 1967, and to charge the
current rates applied for in rendering such services. Pending hearing, it also applied for a
provisional authority so that it can continue to operate and maintain the above mentioned
facilities, provide the services and charge therefor the aforesaid rates therein applied for.
Petitioner was granted one-year provisional authority to continue operating its existing
facilities, to render the services it was then offering, and to charge the rates it was then
charging. The NTC order had extended the provisional authority of the petitioner
for another six (6) months, but it directed the petitioner to charge modified
reduced rates through a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) on the present
authorized rates. Respondent Commissioner ALCUAREZ ordered said reduction on the
ground that the Commission in its on-going review of present service rates takes note that
after an initial evaluation of the financial statements of applicant, there is merit in
a REDUCTION in some of applicant's rates, subject to further reductions, should the
Commission find in its further evaluation that more reduction should be effected either on
the basis of a provisional authorization or in the final consideration of the case. PHILCOMSAT
now assails the order.

ISSUE:
WON the Order reducing the authorized fixed rates is a violation of due process clause

HELD:
Yes, It is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing, respondent has no authority to make such
order without first giving petitioner a hearing, whether the order be temporary or
permanent, and it is immaterial whether the same is made upon a complaint, a summary

investigation, or upon the commission's own motion as in the present case. That such a
hearing is required is evident in respondents' order of September 16, 1987 in NTC Case No.
87-94 which granted PHILCOMSAT a provisional authority "to continue operating its existing
facilities, to render the services it presently offers, and to charge the rates as reduced by
them "under the condition that "(s)ubject to hearing and the final consideration of the merit
of this application, the Commission may modify, revise or amend the rates ..."
While it may be true that for purposes of rate-fixing respondents may have other sources of
information or data, still, since a hearing is essential, respondent NTC should act solely on
the basis of the evidence before it and not on knowledge or information otherwise acquired
by it but which is not offered in evidence or, even if so adduced, petitioner was given no
opportunity to controvert.
Consequently, we hold that the challenged order, particularly on the issue of rates provided
therein, being violative of the due process clause is void and should be nullified.

ANG TIBAY VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

FACTS:
This is about a Motion for Reconsideration filed by National Labor Union Inc. that Teodoro
Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army.
Due to alleged shortage of leather, Toribio caused the layoff of members of National Labor
Union (NLU). NLU averred that Toribios act is not valid. The CIR, decided the case and
elevated it to the SC, but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. But Ang Tibay filed a
motion for opposing the said motion.
The respondent National Labor Union, Inc. avers that:
1. That Toribio Teodoro's claims that there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY
making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor
Union Inc., is entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs
and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather.
2. That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a
scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his
CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.
3. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the Philippine Army (re supposed delay of leather
soles from the States) was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of
this bond despite the breach of his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.
4. That the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company or employer
union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal.
5. That in the exercise by the laborers of their rights to collective bargaining, majority
rule and elective representation are highly essential and indispensable.

ISSUE:
WON the request of the respondent for new trial should be granted

HELD:
Yes. According to the Supreme Court, this result, however, does not now preclude the
concession of a new trial prayed for the by respondent National Labor Union, Inc., it is
alleged that "the supposed lack of material claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme
adopted to systematically discharged all the members of the National Labor Union Inc., from
work" and this avernment is desired to be proved by the petitioner with the "records of the
Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native dealers in leather"; that "the
National Workers Brotherhood Union of Ang Tibay is a company or employer union
dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal." Petitioner
further alleges under oath that the exhibits attached to the petition to prove his substantial
avernments" are so inaccessible to the respondents that even within the exercise of due
diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the
Court of Industrial Relations", and that the documents attached to the petition "are of such
far reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the
modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein." We have considered the reply of
Ang Tibay and its arguments against the petition. By and large, after considerable
discussions, we have come to the conclusion that the interest of justice would be better
served if the movant is given opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred
to in his motion and such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved. The
legislation which created the Court of Industrial Relations and under which it acts is new. The
failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved is not entirely attributable to the parties
adversely affected by the result.

SC Ruling
Accordingly, the motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the
entire record of this case shall be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with
instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be relevant and
otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth hereinabove.

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG(G.R. 99327

May 27, 1993)
FACTS:

Aguila Legis, a fraternity in Ateneo Law School, held its initiation rites upon neophytes.As a
result thereof, one neophyte named Leonardo "Lennie" H. Villa, a first year law student, died
of serious physical injuries. Another freshman student by the name of Bienvenido Marquez
was also hospitalized for acute renal failure occasioned by the serious physical injuries
inflicted upon him on the same occasion. Dean del Castillo created an investigating
committee

Which was tasked to investigate and submit a report regarding the circumstances
surrounding the death of Lennie Villa. The respondent students were asked to submit their
written statements but failed to do so. In the meantime, they were placed in
preventive suspension. The investigating committee, after receiving the written statements
and hearing the testimonies of several witness, found a prima facie case against respondent
students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent
students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge. Petitioner
Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent students. The
Board found respondent students guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School
Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. However, in view of the
lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Board
left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas
imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. Respondent students filed with
RTC Makati a temporary restraining order (TRO) since they are currently enrolled.
Judge Capulong, upon students appeal, ordered
Ateneo to reverse its decision and reinstate the said students.
ISSUE/S:
Whether a school is within its rights in expelling students from its academic community
pursuant to its disciplinary rules and moral standards
RULING:
YES. As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed
with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external
controls or pressure. The Supreme Court consistently upheld the salutary proposition that
admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being
a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under the education Act of
1982, students have a right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula
and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as all rights are,
to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic
institution.