t .

' ~ f

31\epublir of tbe i)bilippinrs

~upreme QI:ourt
Jmanila

EN BANC

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en bane issued a Resolution dated
August 26, 2014, which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 210885 (James Mark Terry L. Ridon imd Jonas Julius
Caesar N. Azura " AXN Networks Philippines, Inc., Securities and
Exchange Commission, National Telecommunications Commission, and
Movie and Television Review. and Classification Board); G.R. No. 210886
(James Mark Terry L. Ridon and Jonas Julius Caesar N. Azura " Fox
International Channels Philippines Corporation, Securities and Exchange
Commission, National Telecommunications Commission and Movie and
Television Review and C/ass~fication Board). - In these two (2)
1
consolidated petitions filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Court
is being called to decide whether the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) failed in performing its statutory duty of enforcing the nationality
requirements, 2 prescribed in Section 11, Article XVI of the Constitution, on
the ownership and management of mass media and those that are engaged in
the advertising agency when it granted franchises through the issuance of
certificates of registration 3 in favor of AXN Networks Philippines, Inc.
(AXN) and Fox International Channels Philippines Corporation (FOX).

Petitioners James Mark Terry L. Ridon (Rep. Ridon), a member of

the House of Representatives and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBPJ
and Atty. Jonas Julius Caesar N. Azura (Atty. Azura), also a member of the
IBP, allege that the SEC effectively allowed AXN and FOX to engage as
mass media and advertising entities despite being 99.99o/o controlled by
aliens, thus, violating the constitutionally prescribed foreign ownership
restrictions on nationalized industries.

1
Rollo (G.R. No. 210885). pp. 3-32: rollo ((i R. No. 210886). pp. 3-34.
'Heirs o(Gamboa ,._Teves. el al .. (i.R. No. 176579 . .lune 28. 2011.652 SCRA 690. 743.
' Rollo (G. R. No. 2 I 0885 ). p. 36; rollo. (G. R. No. 210886 ). p. 38.

f
 RESOLUTION 2 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

. l ! ( ; .l -,:; ~. ~ ...

.. ~ ..:.: "'::-.A~.~~ :,:''The.. J 987 Constitution embodies the policy of Filipinization as a

'
1
;, : . '. ' .. continuing expression of the collective sense of nationalism that sprung in
:

the early days of the Republic. 4 It prohibits and/or limits the participation of
'~
.. ,. :1 ..
..
~.
. ~- al~e.ns .il'.l .epterprises considered sensitive and vital to both the national
- eeonomy~~d national security. Thus, paragraph 1, Section 11 of Article
XVI of the Constitution5 restricts the ownership and management of mass
media to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or
associations, wholly-owned and managed by such citizens. Paragraph 26 of
the same article likewise restricts engagement in the advertising industry to
Filipino citizens or corporations or associations with at least seventy per
centum of its capital owned by such citizens.

The Factual Antecedents

In his privilege speech, 7 labeled by the media as the "State of

Philippine Cable Television" 8 and delivered on January 27, 2014 before the
House of Representatives, petitioner Rep. Ridon accused foreign-dominated
companies, specifically AXN and FOX, of "encroaching upon protected
industries including the mass media and the advertising. He said that based
on the last documents submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), corporations, xxx xxx xxx including those abovementioned, have
foreign shares which constitute 99.99 percent of ownership-a clear
violation of the Constitution' [that) xxx xxx xxx these corporations cannot be
allowed to engage in mass media by providing programming content to
CATV operators or engaging in advertising pursuant to the limitation under
the 1987 Constitution and other statutes governing the mass media
industry. 9" Thus, he said that "{t]he failure of government regulation over
4
Heirs of Gamboa v. Teves, et al., supra note 2, citing Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, p. 452, citing Smith, Bell and Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 136, 148 (1919); Luzon Stevedoring
Corporation v. Anti-Dummy Board, 150-B Phil. 380 (1972).
5
The 1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 11, par. 1. The ownership and management of mass media shall be
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and
managed by such citizens.
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial mass media when the public interest so
requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein shall be allowed.
6
The 1987 Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 11, par. 2. The advertising industry is impressed with public
interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general
welfare.
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least seventy per centum of the capital of which is
owned by such citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry.
7
III Record, House 16th Congress 1st Session 6 (January 27, 2014)
http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/congrec/16th/lst/16C IRS-40-012714.pdf; Last visited August 19,
2014.
8
Lawmaker slaps AXN, Fox with pile ofraps
<http://www.manilatimes.net/lawmaker-slaps-axn-fox-with-pile-of-raps/75237/> Last visited August 19,
2014.
9
III Record, House 16th Congress 151 Session 7 (January 27, 2014)
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/congrec/l 6th/1 st/16C_ l RS-40-012714.pdt> Last visited August
19, 2014.

~
 RESOLUTION 3 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

the activities of these corporations has allowed these corporations to

directly compete with legally existing domestic corporations engaged in
similar activities in the mass media industry. Big cable operators may not
have any problem with this, but what about the hundreds of other small local
cable TV operators and local content providers and advertisers?" 10

Fearing "that the direct but unwarranted competition of these

foreign-owned corporations with legally existing domestic corporations,
engaged in similar activities poses threats to the continuing viability of
constitutionally protected domestic industries and employment of their
thousands of workers," Rep. Ridon urged the House of Representatives "to
investigate the state of compliance of the cable television industry, including
CATV operators and programming content providers, with the nationality
restrictions ofthe 1987 Constitution and other existing statutes." 11

On February 7, 2014, Rep. Ridon and Atty. Azura formally brought

the issue to the attention of the Court through the filing of these consolidated
petitions. The petitioners believe that the failure of AXN and FOX to fulfill
the minimum nationality requirements should have prevented the SEC from
issuing the pertinent certificates of registration for being contrary to the
Constitution.

According to the petitioners, AXN and FOX were given by the SEC
the authorization to engage in mass media and advertising despite being
99.99% controlled by aliens. As the pertinent General Information Sheets 12
would show, AXN is 99.99 % owned by South Asian Regional Investments,
Inc., an entity organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A.;
and FOX is 99.99% owned by Star Television Advertising Ltd., an entity
organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands.

Under AXN's Amended Articles of Incorporation (AO!), 13 which was

approved by the SEC on January 20, 2012, its primary purpose was "[t]o
buy or sell for its own account or as agent, television advertising time for
television companies and to conduct promotional and other similar
activities for that purpose." 14 One of its secondary purposes was "[t]o deal
and engage in, for its own account, on commission or for such fees as may
be proper and legal, any lawful arrangements and agreements involving the
use of television airtime by television operators such as but not limited to
10
III Record, House 16th Congress 1st Session 7 (January 27, 2014)
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/congrec/16th/1st/16C_1RS-40-012714.pdf> Last visited August
19, 2014.
'l III Record, House 16th Congress 1st Session 7 (January 27, 2014)
<http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/congrec/16th/1st/16C_1RS-40-012714.pdf> Last visited August
19,2014. '
12
Rollo (G.R. No. 210885), pp. 48-54; rollo (G.R. No. 210886), pp. 59-64.
13
Rollo (G.R. No. 210885), pp. 39-44.
14
Id. at 39. [Emphases ours]

ff
 RESOJ,UTION 4 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

carriage agreements, and to provide marketing, promotional, support,

15
and other similar services for this purpose."

On the other hand, FOX, based on its Amended AOl 16 which was
approved by the SEC on November 17, 2010, was organized primarily "[t]o
provide consulting, liaison, marketing and promotional, after-sales,
technical and training services to cable and television operators." Secondary
to that purpose, Fox was to provide advertising, sponsorship and related
. . 17
ac t 1v1tes.

To the petitioners, the authority conferred under the issued AO!s to

AXN and FOX should not have been given in the first place, as it runs afoul
of the Constitutional proscription on alien domination of mass media and
advertising. Hence, as taxpayers and Filipino citizens, the petitioners pray
that the Court:

111 Declare null and void the SEC issuance of the certificates of
registration to AXN and FOX for being patently
unconstitutional;

12 JOrder the SEC to suspend or revoke the said certificates;

131 Enjoin and prohibit AXN and FOX from continuing to

operate under the said certificates;

141 Enjoin and prohibit the SEC from issuing any further
certificates to applicants that fail to comply with the
requirements on ownership provided under the Constitution;
and

151 Enjoin and prohibit the National Telecommunications

Commission (NTC) and the Movie and Television Review and
Classification Board (MTRCB) from allowing the airing of all
cable channels bearing content illegally distributed and/or
produced by AXN and FOX. 18

19
In their consolidated Comment, the SEC, the NTC and the MTRCB,
through their counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). disagree
and pray for the dismissal of the petitions. AXN and FOX, in their

1
' lei. [Emphasis ours]
11
' Rollo (G.R. No. 210886). pp. 41-50.
17 lei.
18
Rollo (G.R. No. 210885). pp. 29-30; rollo (G.R. No. 210886). pp. 31-32.
19

r
Rn/In (G. R. No. 2 I0885 ). pp. 234-281.
 RESOLUTION 5 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886
21
Opposition 20 and Comment/Opposition, similarly pray that the petitions be
dismissed for the following reasons:

[1] The petitioners failed to first exhaust all available

administrative remedies before the SEC, the NTC and the MTRCB;

[2] Assuming that the failure to exhaust remedies may be excused,

the petitioners still palpably disregarded the principle of hierarchy
of courts;

[3] There is no justiciable controversy that is ripe for judicial

adjudication in the present case;

[4] The petitioners lack the requisite legal standing to file the
petitions;

[5] The petitioners are not entitled to an injunction, as they have no

right in esse that warrants immediate protection from the courts;
there will be no irreparable injury that will result even if injunction
is denied; if the injunction is granted, it would be tantamount to
prejudgment on the merits of the case; if it is the government that is
being enjoined from implementing an issuance that enjoys the
presumption of validity, the discretion in granting or denying
applications for injunctive writs must be exercised with utmost
caution; and

[6] Lastly, the nationality requirements under the Constitution do

not apply, because AXN and FOX are not engaged in mass media or
the advertising business. 22

In addition, the respondents insist that the ownership restriction under

the Constitution does not apply to them, as they do not broadcast signals to
the public. Thus, they cannot be considered as mass media entities.

Furthermore, they assert the inapplicability of the 70:30 nationality

rule as they are not engaged in the business of advertising.

The Issue

In issuing the pertinent certificates of registration, did the SEC

effectively allow AXN and FOX to engage in mass media and advertising
despite being 99.99% controlled by aliens and, thus, violate the foreign
ownership restrictions under Section 11 Article XVI of the 1987
Constitution?

10
Id. at 61-82.
21
Rollo (G.R. No. 210886). pp. 108-153.
22
Rollo (G.R. No. 210885 ). pp. 61-81 and pp. 183-228.
 RESOLUTION 6 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

To properly resolve the issue, the Court must first rule on the
propriety of the petitioners' direct recourse via Rule 65.

The Court's Ruling

The primary relief being prayed for by the petitioners is for the Court
to declare as unconstitutional the issuance by the SEC of the certificates of
registration in favor of AXN and FOX. This essentially means that the SEC
is being accused of violating the Constitution - an allegation of grave abuse
of discretion, 23 although not as precisely worded as that, for having allegedly
committed an act in utter and blatant disregard of the constitutionally
mandated foreign ownership restrictions in protected industries.

The success of these petitions and of all the other reliefs prayed for
depends on the Court's exercise of its extraordinary power of judicial
review. It is a review meant to put to a test the constitutionality of the SEC 's
issuance via a petition for review on certiorari under Section I of Rule 65.
The provision reads as follows:

Section 1. Petitiun for certiorari. - When any tribunal,

board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. 2 4

A plain reading of the above shows that certiorari may lie only when
a tribunal, board, or officer exercises a judicial or quasi-judicial function
with grave abuse of discretion. In Dacudao v. Gonzales, 25 the Court once
again said that for a special civil action for certiorari to prosper, xxx it must
be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-
judicial functions.

2
-' Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment on the part of the public
otlicer concerned. which is equivalent to an excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion mu5t be
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refus3l to perform a dut)
enjoined by l<lw. or to act at all in contemplation or law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrnr: and
despotic manner by reason or p3ssion or hostility. See Presidential Ad Hoc Cn111111illee on !3ehes1 Lnuns 1
Tahusomlra. G.R. No. 133756. July 4. 2008. 557 SCRA 31. 45.
2
~ Rules of Court. Rule 65. Sec. I.
2
' G. R. No. 188056 . .January 8. 2013. 688 SCRA I09.

f
 RESOLUTION 7 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

Thus, the question: Does the SEC function as a judicial body or as a

quasi-judicial body when it issues a certificate of registration or grants a
franchise?

It does not.

The exercise of judicial function consists of the power to determine

what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are, and then to
adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. The term "quasi-judicial function"
applies to the action and discretion of public administrative officers or
bodies that are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of
facts, hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them as a basis for their
26
official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature.

The SEC, in issuing certificates of registration in favor of a

corporation, is not called upon to adjudicate the rights of contending parties
or to exercise, in any manner, discretion of a judicial nature; nor does it
conduct investigations and then draw conclusions from them as basis for its
actions. What it does is merely to verify the documents submitted for
incorporation in order to determine if there has been substantial compliance
with the list of requirements of the Code. Thus, in the process of
incorporation, the SEC is clearly not acting in any judicial or quasi-judicial
capacity.

Constitutional law teaches that the State's authorization for creating a

private corporation such as AXN and FOX emanates from Congress and is
expressed through a general law enacted for that specific purpose. 27 That law
28
is the Corporation Code (Code), which gives the SEC the power to approve
or reject the AOI .of any corporation in accordance with the statutory
29
requirements of the Code. Thus, when the SEC gives the State's consent
for a corporate entity to exist through the approval of the latter's AOI and
the subsequent issuance of a certificate of registration, it is as if Congress
itself approves the creation of that corporation.

26
Saraya v. Ongsuco, G.R. No. 182065, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 499.
27
The 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the
formation. organization. or regulation of private corporations. Government-owned or controlled
corporations may be created or established by special cha11ers in the interest of the common good and
subject to the test of economic viabi Iity.
28
Batas Pambansa Big. 68.
29
The Corporation Code, Sec. 19. Commencement of'corporate existence. - A private corporation formed
or organized under this Code commences to have corporate existence and juridical personality and is
deemed incorporated from the date the Securities and Exchange Commission issues a certificate of
incorporation under its official seal; and thereupon the incorporators, stockholders/members and their
successors shall constitute a body politic and corporate under the name stated in the articles or
incorporation for the period of time mentioned therein. unless said period is extended or the corporation is
sooner dissolved in accordance with law.

f
 RESOLUTION 8 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

This being the case, there is no reason to excuse the glaring absence of
one of the requirements of judicial review. Without a doubt, the absence of
an assailed act derived from the exercise of a quasi-judicial or judicial
function removes from the Court the power to decide these petitions by way
of certiorari.

Moreover, the rule requires that in availing of the remedy of special

civil action for certiorari, there must have been neither an appeal nor any
30
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, the
petitioners came directly to this Couti without exhausting other remedies
that could have been plain, speedy and adequate. They state without detail
that to require them to make a prior resort to the processes of the SEC would
constitute no less than a denial of a plain, speedy and adequate remedy and
would cause great and irreparable damage to the petitioners as we! I as to the
Constitution itself.

While exhausting administrative remedies may be dispensed with

when what is being questioned is the validity of the acts of political
departments under the expanded power of judicial review via Rule 65, this
circumstance would not give blanket authority to the Court to resolve the
question. The nature of the reliefs prayed for must also be considered.

In these petitions, the Court is being asked to declare the SEC's

issuance of the certificates of registration to AXN and FOX null and void for
being patently unconstitutional. The necessary consequence of granting the
petitioners' prayer would be to order the SEC to withdraw the certificates of
registration issued to AXN and FOX. Because the issuance of the pertinent
certificates gave the latter corporate life, the withdrawal or revocation of
their certificates would necessarily mean their corporate death. In other
words, by the nature of the reliefs prayed for, it is clear that the petitioners
basically seek the revocation of the very existence of AXN and FOX.

Rules of Court. Rule 65. Sec. I. SfJS. Crisologo v. .IEWM Agro-/11d11strial Cnrpnralin11. G.R. No. 196894.
;o
March 3. 2014.

t
.

RESOLUTION 9 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A, 31 the authority to

suspend or revoke the franchise or certificate of registration of corporations,
partnerships or associations upon any of the grounds provided by law lies
with the SEC. Section 6(i) of this decree specifically mandates that the
decision must be arrived at after proper notice and hearing. 32 Conducting a
hearing is not the function of this Court, for it is not a trier of facts. 33 Neither
can it require the presentation of evidence in order to appreciate the factual
milieu of a case. Prior resort to administrative remedies in this case must not
be perceived as a mere procedural matter that can easily be dispensed with.
It is a step that goes to the very core of the constitutional right to due
process, to which AXN and FOX have an entitlement.

Thus, to comply with the constitutional mandate of affording both

parties the opportunity to properly present their positions on the issue of
compliance with the nationality requirements, especially for AXN and FOX
to defend their threatened corporate life, a hearing must have been availed of
at the level of the SEC, a body no less. equipped with the needed expertise to
rule on the issue .

As a matter of policy, the courts will not resolve a controversy

involving a question that is within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal prior to the latter's resolution of that question, which demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion. It is a discretion requiring the
pertinent tribunal's specialized knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact as
well as to maintain a uniformity of ruling, which is .essential to a compliance
with the premises of the regulatory statute it administers. 34

31
Sec. 6(i). In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the following
powers:
xxx xxx xxx
(i) To suspend, or revoke, after proper notice and hearing, the franchise or certificate of registration of
corporations, partnerships or associations, upon any of the grounds provided by law, including the
following:
[l] Fraud in procuring its certificate ofregistration;
[2] Serious misrepresentation as to what the corporation can do or is doing to the great prejudice
of or damage to the general public;
[3] Refusal to comply or defiance of any lawful order of the Commission restraining commission
of acts which would amount to a grave violation of its franchise;
[4 J Continuous inoperation for a period of at least five ( 5) years;
[5] Failure to file by-laws within the required period;
[6] Failure to file required reports in appropriate forms as determined by the Commission within
the prescribed period;
32 Id.
33
Adriano v. Sps. Lasala, G.R. No. 197842, October 8, 2013, 707 SCRA 346, 355.
34
Smart Communications, Inc. v. Globe Telecom, Inc., 456 Phil. 145, 158 (2003), citing Fabia v. Court of
Appeals, 437 Phil. 389 (2002).

r
 RESOLUTION 10 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

It must be stressed further that the requirement of exhausting

administrative remedies is a sound practice and policy. The doctrine insures
an orderly procedure that favors a preliminary sifting process and withholds
judicial interference until the administrative process would have been duly
allowed to run its course. The underlying principle of the rule rests on the
presumption that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to
pass upon the matter, will decide correctly. 35

To repeat, the petitioners fundamentally seek the revocation of the

franchises of AXN and FOX - a matter that is within the competence of the
SEC. To this Court, recourse to the SEC is a plain, speedy, adequate and
equitable remedy.

And should the SEC act upon the petitioners' resort to it, then any
decision arising therefrom may be the proper subject of the remedies
available under the law and the Rules of Court. A SEC decision would
finally give birth to a justiciable controversy that is ripe for judicial
determination, one that does not exist yet in this case.

At this point, worth mentioning is the requirement that for the Court
to exercise its power of judicial review, it must adjudicate a definite and
concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse
legal interests, which may be resolved by a court of law through the
application of a law. 36 Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic
questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. As
a condition precedent to the exercise of judicial power, an actual controversy
between litigants must first exist. 37

At any rate, well-established in this jurisdiction is the rule that

corporate existence cannot be collaterally attacked. Section 20 of the Code
states that the due incorporation of any corporation claiming in good faith to
be a corporation under this Code, and its right to exercise corporate powers,
shall not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to which the
corporation may be a party. Such inquiry may be made by the Solicitor
General in a quo warranto proceeding. In filing these petitions, the
petitioners are in effect making a collateral attack on the corporate existence

35
Dimson (Manila) Inc., v. Local Water Utilities Administration, G.R. No. 168656, September 22, 2010,
631 SCRA 59, citing Carafe v. Abarintos, 336 Phil. 126 (1997).
36
Remman Enterprises Inc., v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service and Professional
Regulation Commission, G.R. No. 197676 , February 4, 2014, citing Information Technology Foundation
of the Phils. v. COMELEC, 499 Phil. 281, 304-305 (2005); Cutaran v. DENR, 403 Phil. 654, 662 (2001).
37
Guingona v. CA, 354 Phil. 415, 426 (1998), citing Angarav. Elector.al Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158,
(1936).

f
"'

RESOLUTION 11 G.R. Nos. 210885 & 210886

of AXN and FOX in the guise of an action questioning the SEC' s issuance
of the pertinent certificates of registration. 38

In the end, the Court would not want to preempt the prerogative to
withdraw or uphold the State's imprimatur on a corporate existence by
giving due course to these petitions. This prerogative rests not on the Court,
but on the SEC pursuant to a congressional delegation under the Corporation
Code; it can also be exercised via a quo warranto proceeding instituted by
the Solicitor General.

There being an impropriety .in the remedy resorted to by the

petitioners and in the absence of the indispensible minimums for judicial
review, the Court cannot give due course to these petitions.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED, without prejudice."

Carpio, J., no part. Brion, J., on leave. Villararrta, Jr. and Perlas-Bernabe,
JJ., on official leave. Jardeleza, J., on leave. (adv44)

Very truly yours,

.
ENRI
. ~ ~DAL
a/Court~

38
The Corporation Code, Sec. 20.
Resolution -12- G. R. Nos. 210885 & 210886
August 26, 2014

ATTY. JONAS JULIUS CAESAR N. AZURA (reg) THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (reg)
Counsel for the Petitioner Office of the Solicitor General
Suite 2606, Raffles Corporate Center 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City

A1c INFORMATION OFFICE (x)

LIBRARY SERVICES (x)
AXN NETWORKS PHILIPPINES, INC. (reg)
Unit 15A, 15th Floor, Equitable Bank Tower 8751
Paseo De Roxas 1226 Makati City
[For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 12-7-1-SC]
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (reg)
JUDICIAL RECOORDS OFFICE (x) SEC Building, Epifanio de los Santo Avenue
JUDGMENT DIVISION (x) Greenhills, Mandaluyong City
Supreme Court
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD (reg)
NTC Building, BIR Road, East Triangle
Diliman, Quezon City

G.R. Nos. 210885 &210886 MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW

wmd 82614 (adv44) 9914 AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (reg)
MTRCB Building, No. 18 Timog Avenue, Quezon City

ATTYS. LOVIE T. OGSIMER, JOMINI C. NAZARENO,

DINO ROCARDO T. DE LOS ANGELES AND
ROLAND GLENN T. TUAZON (reg)
Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc and De Los
Angeles
Counsel for Respondent FOX International Channels
Philippines Corporation
21s1 Floor, Philamlife Tower, 8767 Paseo de Roxas
St., Makati City.1226

ATTY. AUGUSTO A. SAN PEDRO, JR. (reg)

Villaraza and Angangco
Counsel for respondent AXN Networks
Philippines, Inc.
11th Avenue corner 39th Street, Bonifacio Triangle
Bonifacio Global City, 1634 Taguig, Metro Manila