Smart Communications vs. Municipality of Malvar

Smart Communications, Inc. vs. Municipality of Malvar February 18, 2014 Carpio, J. i!est by Clar" #ytico S#MM$%&  '(e Municipality Municipality of Malvar Malvar impose) impose) an or)inance or)inance *(ere *(ere it aims to re!ulate re!ulate t(e establis(ment establis(ment of special special pro+ects. pro+ects. It assesse) Smart an amount of 8-,-0.00 8-,-0.00 for t(e telecommunications telecommunications to*er t(at t(e latter constructe) in Malvar. Smart conten)s t(at t(e same is a ta/, an) is un)uly oppressive an) ultra vires. C'$ )ismisse) t(e case for lac" of +uris)iction because t(e same is ' a ta/. Court a!ree) *it( C'$, an) (el) t(at 3#s (ave t(e po*er to impose fees F$C'S Smart constructe) a telecommunications to*er *it(in t(e territorial +uris)iction of t(e Municipality. '(e construction of t(e to*er *as for t(e purpose of receivin! an) transmittin! cellular communications *it(in t(e covere) area. n 0 July 200, t(e Municipality passe) r)inance o. 18, series of 200, entitle) $n r)inance %e!ulatin! t(e 5stablis(ment of Special 6ro+ects. n 24 $u!ust 2004, Smart receive) from t(e 6ermit an) icensin! ivision of t(e 7ce of t(e Mayor of t(e Municipality an assessment letter *it( a sc(e)ule of payment for t(e total amount of 68-,-0.00 for Smarts telecommunications to*er. ue to t(e alle!e) arrears in t(e payment of t(e assessment, t(e Municipality also cause) t(e postin! of a closure notice on t(e telecommunications to*er. n - September 2004, Smart 9le) a protest, claimin! lac" of )ue process in t(e issuance of t(e assessment an) closure notice. In t(e same protest, Smart c(allen!e) t(e vali)ity of r)inance o. 18 on *(ic( t(e assessment *as base). In a letter )ate) 28 September 2004, t(e Municipality )enie) Smarts protest. %'C partially !rante) Smarts petition, but )i) not rule on t(e le!ality of r)inance o. 18. It )eclare) t(at Smart is only liable for fees startin! ctober 1, 200, an) null an) voi) insofar as t(e assessment ma)e from 2001 to 200. M% )enie). C'$ )enie). C'$ M% also )enie). C'$ en banc )enie). C'$ en banc li"e*ise )enie). SM$%'s ar!uments: C'$ erre) in refusin! to ta"e co!ni;ance of t(e case an) for )ismissin! t(e case for lac" of +uris)iction consi)erin! t(e factual circumstances involve).  '(e fees impose) impose) in r)inance r)inance o. o. 18 are actually actually ta/es ta/es since t(ey are are not re!ulatory re!ulatory but rat(er, rat(er, revenue?raisin!. Municipality is encroac(in! on t(e re!ulatory po*ers of t(e ational 'elecommunications Commission @'CA. Smart cites Section @!A of %epublic $ct o. B-2 *(ic( provi)es t(at t(e 'C, in t(e e/ercise of  its re!ulatory po*ers, s(all impose suc( fees an) c(ar!es as may be necessary to cover reasonable costs an) e/penses for t(e re!ulation an) supervision of t(e operations of telecommunications entities. '(us, Smart alle!es t(at t(e re!ulation of telecommunications telecommunications entities an) all aspects of its operations is speci9cally lo)!e) by la* on t(e 'C. Malvars ar!uments: Sai) r)inance is not a ta/ or)inance but a re!ulatory fee impose) to re!ulate t(e