Police Power
TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION
TAXICAB OPERATORS, petitioners-appellees,
vs.
BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, respondent-appellant
G.R. No. L-59234
September 30, 1982
Ponente: MELENCIO-HERRERA
Nature of Case
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
BRIEF
This is a Petition filed by the Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila,
Inc., Felicisimo Cabigao and Ace Transportation which seeks to
declare the nullity of Memorandum Circular No. 77-42, dated
October 10, 1977, of the Board of Transportation, and Memorandum
Circular No. 52, dated August 15, 1980, of the Bureau of Land
Transportation.
FACTS
Petitioners who are taxicab operators assail the constitutionality of
Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 issued by the Board of
Transportation (BOT) providing for the phasing out and replacement
of old and dilapidated taxicabs; as well as Implementing Circular
No. 52 issued pursuant thereto by the Bureau of Land
Transportation (BLT) instructing personnel of the BLT within the
National Capital Region to implement the said BOT Circular, and
formulating a schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be allowed and
accepted
for
registration
as
public
conveyances.
Petitioners allege that the questioned Circulars did not afford them
procedural and substantive due process, equal protection of the
law, and protection against arbitrary and unreasonable
classification and standard. Among others, they question the
issuance of the Circulars without first calling them to a conference
or requiring them to submit position papers or other documents
enforceability thereof only in Metro Manila; and their being
applicable only to taxicabs and not to other transportation services.
ISSUE of the CASE
Whether or not the constitutional guarantee of due process was
denied to the taxicab operators and/or other persons affected by
the assailed Circulars No. 52 and 77-42.
ACTIONS of the COURT
SC: Writs prayed for are denied. Petition is dismissed.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS
The Supreme Court held that there was no denial of due process
since calling the taxicab operators or persons who may be affected
by the questioned Circulars to a conference or requiring them to
submit position papers or other documents is only one of the
options open to the BOT which is given wide discretionary authority
under P.D. No. 101; and fixing a six- year ceiling for a car to be
operated as taxicab is a reasonable standard adopted to apply to
all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly.
The Court also ruled that neither has the equal protection clause
been violated by initially enforcing the Circulars only in Metro
Manila since it is of common knowledge that taxicabs in this city,
compared to those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic
pressure and more constant use, thus making for a substantial
distinction; nor by non-application of the Circulars to other
transportation services because the said Circulars satisfy the
criteria required under the equal protection clause, which is the
uniform operation by legal means so that all persons under
identical or similar circumstances would be accorded the same
treatment both in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed.
It is clear from the provision of Section 2 of P.D. 101, that the
leeway accorded the Board gives it a wide range of choice in
gathering necessary information or data in the formulation of any
policy, plan or program. It is not mandatory that it should first call a
conference or require the submission of position papers or other
documents from operators or persons who may be affected, this
being only one of the options open to the Board, which is given
wide discretionary authority. Petitioners cannot justifiably claim,
therefore, that they were deprived of procedural due process.
Neither can they state with certainty that public respondents had
not availed of other sources of inquiry prior to issuing the
challenged Circulars. Operators of public conveyances are not the
only primary sources of the data and information that may be
desired
by
SUPREME COURT RULING
the
BOT.
WHEREFORE, the Writs prayed for are denied and this Petition is
hereby dismissed. No costs.
