Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc vs The Board of
Transportation et al
15 11 2010
“Equal Protection” – Phasing Out of Old Taxis in MM
but not Elsewhere
Facts: On 10 Oct 1977, BOT issued Circ 77-42 which has for
its purpose the phasing out of old and dilapidated taxis which are 6 years
older. The law is set to be immediately implemented in Metro Manila first
before it would be implemented elsewhere. Pursuant to this, the Director of the
Bureau of Land Transportation issued Circ 52 which is the IRR of the law in the
NCR. TOMMI assailed the constitutionality of the law. It avers, among
other things, that the Circular in question violates their right to equal
protection of the law because the same is being enforced in Metro Manila only
and is directed solely towards the taxi industry. At the outset it should be
pointed out that implementation outside Metro Manila is also envisioned in
Memorandum Circular No. 77-42.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a violation of the equal protection clause by the
implementation of the said circular.
HELD: The SC held that Circ 77-42 is valid. BOT’s reason for enforcing the
Circular initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in this city, compared to
those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more
constant use. Thus is of common knowledge. Considering that traffic conditions
are not the same in every city, a substantial distinction exists so that
infringement of the equal protection clause can hardly be successfully claimed.
In so far as the non-application of the assailed
Circulars to other transportation services is concerned, it need only be
recalled that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same
treatment be accorded all and sundry. It applies to things or persons
identically or similarly situated. It permits of classification of the object
or subject of the law provided classification is reasonable or based on
substantial distinction, which make for real differences, and that it must
apply equally to each member of the class. What is required under the equal
protection clause is the uniform operation by legal means so that all persons
under identical or similar circumstance would be accorded the same treatment
both in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed. The challenged
Circulars satisfy the foregoing criteria.