******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).

*****************************************************************



                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                 )
                                )
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE         )    File No. EB-01-IH-0470
TELEPHONE COMPANY                )
Complainant                      )
                                )
v.                               )
                                )
WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.       )
Respondent                       )
                                )
                                )
In the Matter of                 )
                                )
WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.       )    NAL/Acct. No. 216E10001
                                )
And                              )
                                )
MANILA PENINSULA HOTEL           )    NAL/Acct. No. 216E10002
Apparent Liability for           )
Forfeiture


                    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 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 
_________________________

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. 
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'').