TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA, INC vs. THE BOARD OF
TRANSPORTATION (1982)
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
·
On
October 10, 1977, BOT issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 that aimed to phase out and replace old
dilapidated taxis to insure only safe comfortable units are used by the public,
to respond to complaints by metro manila residents regarding the old
dilapidated taxis, to make the commuting public more comfortable, have more
convenience and safety. 6 years is enough for taxi operators to get back cost
of unit plus profits. à no car beyond 6 years can
still be operated as taxi.
·
Taxis
model 1971 were considered withdrawn on Dec 31, 1977 à applied
it to succeeding years just add one year to both dates. à they
had to surrender the expired taxi’s plates to the BoT for turnover to Land
Transpo Commission.
·
Pursuant
to the above BOT circular, respondent Director of the Bureau of Land
Transportation (BLT) issued Implementing Circular No. 52, dated August 15,
1980, instructing the Regional Director, the MV Registrars and other personnel
of BLT, all within the NCR, to implement the phasing out of the taxis.
·
On
January 27, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT, docketed as Case
No. 80-7553, seeking to nullify MC No. 77-42 or to stop its implementation; to
allow the registration and operation in 1981 and subsequent years of taxicabs
of model 1974, as well as those of earlier models which were phased-out,
provided that, at the time of registration, they are roadworthy and fit for
operation.
The issues were in the form of
questions that the petitioners presented to the SC through a query.
A. Did BOT and BLT promulgate the
questioned memorandum circulars in accord with the manner required by
Presidential Decree No. 101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners'
constitutional right to procedural due process?
B. Granting, arguendo, that
respondents did comply with the procedural requirements imposed by Presidential
Decree No. 101, would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed
memorandum circulars violate the petitioners' constitutional rights to.
(1) Equal protection of the
law;
(2)
Substantive due process; and
(3)
Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard?
HELD:
The court here did not answer the queries directly
they just dealt with the ff issues
1.
WON the procedural and substantive due process
rights of the taxi operators were violated à NO.
2.
WON their equal protection rights were violatedà NO.
On
Procedural and Substantive Due Process:
Presidential Decree No. 101
grants to the Board of Transportation the power
4. To
fix just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices,
measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed, observed, and followed by
operators of public utility motor vehicles.
Section 2 of said Decree
provides procedural guidelines for said agency to follow in the exercise of its
powers:
Sec. 2. Exercise of powers. —
In the exercise of the powers granted in the preceding section, the Board shall
proceed promptly along the method of legislative inquiry.
Apart from its own
investigation and studies, the Board, in its discretion, may require the
cooperation and assistance of the Bureau of Transportation, the Philippine
Constabulary, particularly the Highway Patrol Group, the support agencies
within the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, or
any other government office or agency that may be able to furnish useful information
or data in the formulation of the Board of any policy, plan or program in the
implementation of this Decree.
The Board may also call
conferences, require the submission of position papers or other documents,
information, or data by operators or other persons that may be affected by the
implementation of this Decree, or employ any other suitable means of inquiry.
·
PET
claim that they were denied due process because they were not asked to submit
position papers or to attend conferences regarding the assailed circ.
o
SC held
that the PD provides a wide leeway as to how the board will choose to gather
data in formulating its policy. NOT ALL OPTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DONE FOR
POLICY TO BE VALID à the
board has the choice of which avenue to pursue in collecting data.
·
PET
also claim that 6 year limit was arbitrarily set à oppressive à they want each taxi cab to be inspected
regarding their condition WON it was still safe and roadworthy despite age.
o
Court
held that their proposed standard is not practicable and can open the door to
multiple standards and corruption
o
Court
furthers aid that 6 years is a reasonable time based on experience and based on
cost and fair returns on the units
o
Court
held that a uniform standard is best and fair
On
Equal Protection of the Law:
PET
allege that the circular targets and singles out the taxi industry = violation
of their equal protection rights
è
Court
said NO. Circs of the same kind are also being implemented in other cities like
Cebu and is also in the process of conducting the same studies and policy
formulations in other cities.
è
Manila
was first because of the heavier traffic pressure and the more constant use of
the taxis in MM.
è
SUBSTANTIAL
DISTINCTION à the
traffic conditions in the various cities
CONCLUSIONS:
è Manila has more traffic which
means that taxis in Metro Manila are more heavily used and more likely to
deteriorate.
è The public has a right to
convenience, comfort and safety in their public commute.
è The danger posed by the
dilapidated and old taxis is a valid nuisance that the Board can abate through
the circular that it passed.
è Absent a clear showing of any
repugnancy of the circular it is deemed valid.
Petition DISMISSED
No comments:
Post a Comment