CA orders PCC to explain why it should not stop probe on P70B telco deal

The Court of Appeals has ordered the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) to comment on the separate petitions filed by the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) and Globe Telecommunications Incorporated and explain why the court should not stop its comprehensive review on the P70-billion buyout deal on the telecommunication assets of San Miguel Corporation (SMC).

In separate resolutions made public Monday, the appeals court’s 12th and 6th divisions gave PCC 10 days to submit its comment on the petitions filed by PLDT and Globe.

READ: Court lets probe of PLDT, Globe deal proceed—PCC

“Without necessarily giving due course to the instant petition…Philippine Competition Commission is directed to file a comment (not a motion to dismiss) within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice and show cause why the petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction should not be granted,” the CA 12th division resolution written by Associate Justice Ramon Bato Jr. stated.

After compliance, PLDT has five days to submit a reply. Then, the court said it will determine if it will submit the case for decision or will still conduct a hearing or require submission of memorandum.

READ: PCC gets boost in bid to review telco deal

The CA 6th division, however, denied Globe’s bid for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against PCC’s investigation.

In its two-page resolution, the appeals court through Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela explained that for a restraining order to be issued, the right to be protected must exist and the acts sought to be restrained are violative of that right.

But the court said “mere allegations of the existence of the such requisites, absent proof, cannot be the basis for the issuance of an injunctive writ.” RAM