Lemi v. Valencia

d2015member
Lemi v. Valencia (Sec of Public Works and Communications), San Andres (Chief, Radio Control Office), Cargo (Supposedly agent of the Sec of Public Works and Communications), San Juan (Radio Regulation Inspector, Radio Control Office), Cajator (Chairman, Presidential Anti-Graft Committee), and Agents (1963) Dizon, J. Lemi is a holder of a franchise to operate radio stations. One day, the Dept of Public Works and Communications, armed with a warrant, seized his radio transmitter, causing him to stop radio operations. Such seizure was due to his transmitter being a different one than what was stated in his permit. He applies for a prelim mandatory injunction against those who took his transmitter. Facts:
Lemi is the holder of a franchise authorizing him to maintain, and operate radio stations in the Philippines (this is by virtue of RA 1553: An act granting Eliseo B. Lemi, a temporary permit to construct, maintain and operate radio broadcasting stations for TV in the Phils ). He was issued a license by the Dept of Public Works and Communications to operate radio station DZQR at 603 Ronquillo st., Manila, which was subsequently transferred to Globe Theater Bldg. and again, with proper authority, returned to its original location. The first license issued for May 24, 1960 to May 23, 1961. On April 12, 1961 he filed an application for renewal to cover May 24, 1961 to May 23, 1962, and paid the fees. The Radio Control Office appears not act on this application. Still, Lemi continued to operate his station without any interference from the Office. This gave rise to the presumption that the Office had no objection to the stations continued operation. He filed a second application for renewal to cover May 24, 1962 to May 23, 1963 and paid the fees. Again the Office took no action. o (not impt but note that on this date, Dec 7, 1962, respondent San Andres, on behalf of the Sec of Public Works and Communications, requested Lemi to feature some Department matters in his radio broadcasts as a public service feature. During this date, the Office took no action on the renewal but used the radio station) Jan 11, 1963: CFI-Manila issued a Search Warrant authorizing the warrant applicant (agents of the Dept of Public Works and Communications) to search Lemis radio station and to seize the radio transmitter used. That same day and in the middle of a broadcasting program, they seized the transmitter. Lemi then filed with the SC a special civil action for mandamus with a petition for a prelim mandatory injunction against all respondents (see title). Respondents admit Lemis authority to operate the station but claim that he used a transmitter different from the one he was authorized to use. Also, the transmitter seized was one without any name plate or serial number. Lemi denies this and says that it did not have a visible name plate/serial number because it was a second hand surplus equipment and so it had to be repainted. Turns out, a memo was submitted on March 29, 1962 by a Project Head to the Chief of Radio Control Division, to the effect that when he inspected Lemis station, he was shown a permit for the transfer of the stations location. During that time, the transmitter being used was not the same for which the permit to transfer was issued. He advised Lemi to apply for the permit to possess the transmitter. Later, the Project Head was given an order to have the station closed. However, the non-closure of the station, inspite of the order, was explained in another memo of March 26, 1962. (Case did not say what reason was given in the March 26 memo).
Issue/Held: Should the prelim writ of mandatory injunction be granted? -- YES Ratio:
The March 29, 1962 memo shows that, aside from the claim that the radio transmitter used was not the one he was authorized to use, the same was not objectionable and that its use was known and was tolerated by the Radio Control Office.
On issuing prelim mandatory injunctions: Courts should exercise great care in granting prelim mandatory injunctions because the writ operates not merely to preserve the status quo between the parties but to compel one of them to perform a positive act. However, SC has held in Meralco vs. Del Rosario that that courts should not hesitate in granting the writ in: o Cases of extreme urgency; o Where petitioner's right to the writ is clear; o Where considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly in his favor; o Where there appears to be a willful invasion of petitioner's right, the injury inflicted upon him being a continuing one; and o Where the effect of the mandatory injunction would not be to create a new relation between the parties but solely to re-establish a pre-existing relation between them recently and arbitrarily interrupted by the respondent. Considering the facts in the present case, particularly the circumstance that Lemis inability to continue broadcasting through his radio station affects his contractual relations with third parties, it is justified to grant the preliminary writ of mandatory injunction. Section 3 of the Radio Control Act provides that no application for the renewal of station or operator license shall be disapproved without a hearing. This was implemented by DO No. 11 series of 1950 which provides that a radio station license may be revoked for violations of the radio laws and regulations provided, that no such license shall be revoked without giving the licensee a hearing.
d2015member
While Lemis application renewal was not disapproved, SC says that the requirement of a hearing applies not only if a radio license is to be revoked, but also before the Radio Control Office may lawfully do anything that would amount to such revocation because it makes it impossible for the radio station to continue broadcasting. Such is the situation in this case. By taking the transmitter, the seizure amounted to a closure of the station and/or disapproval of Lemis last application for the renewal of his license.
Respondents claim that the seizure of the transmitter was effected lawfully because it was done pursuant to a search warrant. SC says that this cannot obliterate the fact that such seizure was made in violation of the law requiring a previous hearing. The application for the issuance of the warrant amounted, in effect, to an effort to evade the law requiring a hearing.
Petition granted.

Lemi v. Valencia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lemi v. Valencia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lemi v. Valencia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

d2015member

You might also like