Court junks now cable’s prayer for preliminary injunction
The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 91, denied NOW Cable Inc.’s (NOW Cable) application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) in its complaint filed against National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) and its officials to prevent the implementation of the Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by NTC against NOW Cable.
The NTC, in an Order dated 22 September 2021, issued a CDO against NOW Cable due to the expiration of its legislative franchise. In a Decision dated 18 May 2022, NTC recalled NOW Cable’s assigned frequencies 26.35GHz-27.35GHz including all its channels and provisional authorities for lack of a valid Congressional Franchise.
In its Resolution, the Court ruled that Plaintiff NOW Cable failed to prove its clear and unmistakable right to be protected by a WPI. The Court also noted that the existence, due execution and authenticity of the CDO was never questioned by Plaintiff.
NTC opposed Plaintiff NOW Cable’s application for a writ, stating, among others, that the Court has no authority to grant the relief under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, since the grant of a certificate of authority to operate a radio and television broadcasting system, including CATV, is a mandate of NTC’s quasi-judicial functions.
The Court pointed out that NOW Cable’s legislative franchise, Republic Act (RA) No. 8213, Section 3 requires the need for NTC prior approval for the construction and operation of its station and facilities and the grantee “shall not use any frequency in the radio/television spectrum without having been authorized by the Commission.” NOW Cable’s legislative franchise had a term of twenty-five (25) years which already expired on 21 September 2021.
Citing the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court, the Regional Trial Court quoted: “When the complainant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, he does not have a clear legal right and therefore the issuance of injunctive relief is not proper and constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
“…The party applying for its issuance must show a clear right thereto the violation of which is so recent as to make its vindication an urgent one. In Locsin v. Climaco, We made the pronouncement that the applicant’s right or title must be clear and unquestioned, for equity, as a rule, will not take cognizance of suits to establish title and will not lend its preventive aid by injunction where the applicant’s title or right is doubtful or disputed. So that if a writ of preliminary injunction is issued despite applicant’s doubtful title to the property in controversy or lack of interest therein, the Court is justified in dissolving the writ.
