RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
PHILIPPINES (RCPI) v BOARD OF
COMMUNICATIONS and Diego Morales
GR L-43653
RCPI v Board of Communications and Pacifico
Innocencio
GR L-45378
29 November 1977 | Martin, J. |Quasi-judicial
fines and penalties
FACTS:
In GR L-43653, complainant-respondent
Diego Morales claims that while he was in
Manila, his daughter sent him a telegram
from Isabela informing him of the death of
his wife.
The telegram, sent through
RCPI, never reached him.
He had to be informed
personally and had to take the
trip by airplane.
Because of RCPIs failure to
transmit the message,
respondent allegedly suffered
inconvenience and additional
expenses and prays for
damages.
RCPI claims that the telegram sent by
respondent was transmitted from Isabela to
its Message Center at Cubao but when it was
relayed from Cubao, the radio signal became
intermittent which made the copy received
at Sta. Cruz, Manila unreadable and
unintelligible.
In GR L-45378, complainant-respondent
Innocencio claims that Lourdes Innocencio
sent a telegram from Tarlac to him at
Laguna, to inform him about the death of
their father.
The telegram, sent through RCPI
never reached him.
Despite the non-receipt and/or
non-delivery of the message,
the sender has not been
notified about its non-delivery;
Pacifico was not able to attend
the internment of their father.
Because of RCPIs failure to
deliver the telegram, he was
shocked when he visited his
hometown a few months later;
he suffered mental anguish and
personal inconveniences.
Respondent Board held in both cases that
the service rendered by RCPI was inadequate
and unsatisfactory. A disciplinary fine of P200
was imposed in each case, pursuant to Sec
21 of CA 146, as amended.
ISSUE: W/N the Board of Communications
can impose such liability NO
Petitioner argues that respondent Board has
no jurisdiction to entertain and take
cognizance of complaints for injury cause by
breach of contractual obligation arising from
negligence under Art 1170 and injury caused
by quasi-delict or tort liability under Art
2176. The case should be ventilated in the
proper courts of justice and not in the Board
of Communications.
The Court had already ruled that the Public
Service Commission and its successor in
interest, the Board of Communications,
being a creature of the legislature and
not a court, can exercise only such
jurisdiction and powers as are expressly
or by necessary implication, conferred
upon it by statute.
The Board of Communications
exercises the same powers,
jurisdiction and functions as that
provided for in the Public Service
Act for the Public Service
Commission, one of which is to
issue certificate of public
convenience.
Power to issue certificate of public
convenience does not carry with it
the power of supervision and
control over matters not related to
the issuance of the certificate or in
the performance in a manner
suitable to promote public interest.
Even assuming that the Board of
Communications has the power or
jurisdiction to insure adequate public service,
RCPI cannot be subjected to payment of
fine under Sec 21 of the Public Service
Act.
 Sec 21 subjects to a fine every
public service that violates or fails
to comply with the terms and
conditions of any certificate or any
orders, decisions or regulations of
the Commission.
In both cases at hand, RCPI is not
being charged for violation of the
terms and conditions of its
certificate of public convenience or
of any order, decision or
regulations of the Board of
Communications.
The complaints arose from alleged
breach of contractual obligation
through negligence, which do not
necessarily involve RCPIs failure to
comply with its certificate. The
charge does not relate to the
management of the facilities and
system of transmission of
messages by petitioner in
accordance with its certificate of
public convenience.
The proper forum for complainant-
respondents to ventilate their grievances for
possible recovery of damages against RCPI
should be in the courts.
In Francisco Santiago v RCPI and
Constancio Langan v RCPI, the Court
held that the Public Service
Commission, now the Board of
Communications, has no justification in
imposing fines. The only power the
Commisison possessed over radio
companies was to fix rates. It could not
take to task a radio company for any
negligence or misfeasance. There is
nothing in Sec 21 of the Public Service
Act which empowers the commission to
impose a fine.
Decision: Both decisions of the Board of
Communications are reversed, set aside, and
declared null and void.