*Pages 1--2 from  Microsoft Word - 11424.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  257 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 PHILIPPINE  LONG  DISTANCE  TELEPHONE 
 COMPANY 
 Complainant 


 v. 
 WORLD  COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. 
 Respondent 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 WORLD  COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. 
 And 
 MANILA  PENINSULA  HOTEL 
 Apparent  Liability  for  Forfeiture 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 File  No.  EB-  01-  IH-  0470 
 NAL/  Acct.  No.  216E10001 
 NAL/  Acct.  No.  216E10002 


 ORDER  ON  RECONSIDERATION 
 Adopted:  September  6,  2001  Released:  September  11,  2001 
 By  the  Commission: 
 1.  In  this  Order,  we  deny  the  Philippine  Long  Distance  Telephone  Company’s  (PLDT) 
 petition  for  reconsideration  of  our  Order  canceling  forfeitures  against  World  Communications,  Inc. 
 (WorldCom)  and  the  Manila  Peninsula  Hotel  (Hotel).  1  The  Commission  found  WorldCom  and  the  Hotel 
 apparently  liable  for  the  forfeitures  on  January  23,  1993,  following  its  investigation  of  an  informal 
 complaint  filed  by  PLDT  pursuant  to  section  1.716  of  our  rules.  2  The  Commission  determined  that,  as 
 alleged  in  the  complaint,  the  Hotel  apparently  had  charged  one  of  its  guests  for  making  two  telephone 
 calls  to  the  United  States  over  international  private  lines  (IPLs)  provided  to  the  Hotel  by  Globe-  Mackay 
 Cable  and  Radio  Corporation  on  the  Philippine  end,  and  WorldCom  on  the  United  States  end.  The 
 Commission  further  determined  that  the  Hotel  continued  to  resell  IPL  service  without  the  authorization 
 required  by  section  214  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1943,  as  amended  (the  Act).  3  The  Commission 
 designated  forfeitures  of  $200,000  against  both  WorldCom  and  the  Hotel  for  the  apparent  violations,  and 
 an  additional  $6,000  against  WorldCom  for  apparently  failing  to  adhere  to  restrictions  in  its  tariff  on  the 


 1  Philippine  Long  Distance  Telephone  Company  v.  World  Communications  Inc.  and  Manila  Peninsula  Hotel, 
 13  FCC  Rcd  21520  (1998)  (Cancellation  Order). 
 2  47  C.  F.  R.  §  1.  716;  Philippine  Long  Distance  Telephone  Company  v.  World  Communications  Inc.  and 


 Manila  Peninsula  Hotel,  8  FCC  Rcd  755,  757  (1993)  (Notice  of  Apparent  Liability). 
 3  47  U.  S.  C.  §  214;  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability,  8  FCC  Rcd  at  757. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  01-  257 
 2 
 use  of  IPLs  in  violation  of  section  203(  c)  of  the  Act.  4  We  issued  our  Cancellation  Order  on  October  6, 
 1998,  after  concluding  based  on  our  review  of  the  record  in  this  case,  that  there  was  insufficient  evidence 
 to  sustain  the  Notice  of  Apparent  Liability  against  either  WorldCom  or  the  Hotel.  5  PLDT  argues  that  we 
 failed  to  provide  sufficient  reasons  for  canceling  the  forfeiture  against  WorldCom,  and  that  WorldCom 
 should  be  required  to  pay  the  forfeiture.  6  We  disagree. 


 2.  It  is  well  settled  that  an  agency  has  broad  discretion  to  prosecute  or  terminate  an 
 enforcement  proceeding  and  such  decisions  are  not  reviewable  by  the  courts.  7  Our  decision  to  cancel  the 
 proposed  forfeiture  against  WorldCom  for  insufficient  evidence  is  a  proper  exercise  of  this  broad 
 discretion,  and  PLDT  raises  no  arguments  in  its  petition  that  would  persuade  us  to  reconsider  our 
 decision. 


 3.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  sections  4(  i)  and  503  of  the  Communications 
 Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §§  154(  i),  503,  that  the  petition  for  reconsideration  filed  by  PLDT  IS 
 DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Magalie  Roman  Salas 
 Secretary 


 4  Id. 
 5  Cancellation  Order,  13  FCC  Rcd  at  21520. 
 6  PLDT  petition  at  3.  PLDT  withdrew,  without  prejudice,  its  petition  for  reconsideration  of  the 
 Commission’s  Cancellation  Order  as  it  relates  to  the  Hotel.  Letter  from  Albert  Halprin  and  Stephen  L.  Goodman, 
 Counsel  for  Philippine  Long  Distance  Telephone  Company,  to  Magalie  Roman  Salas,  Secretary,  FCC  (Jan.  21, 
 1999). 


 7  Heckler  v.  Chaney,  470  U.  S.  821,  831-  32  (1985);  NY  State  Dept.  of  Law  v.  FCC,  984  F.  2d  1209,  1213 


 (D.  C.  Cir.  1993)  (“  the  FCC  is  best  positioned  to  weigh  the  benefits  of  pursuing  an  adjudication  against  the  costs  to 
 the  agency  (including  financial  and  opportunity  costs)  and  the  likelihood  of  success”). 
2