Taxicab
Operators v. The Board of Transportation [GR L-59234, 30 September 1982]
En Banc, Melencio-Herrera (p): 12 concur, 2 concur in the result
En Banc, Melencio-Herrera (p): 12 concur, 2 concur in the result
Facts: Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI) is a
domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators, who are grantees of
Certificates of Public Convenience to operate taxicabs within the City of
Manila and to any other place in Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic. Ace
Transportation Corporation and Felicisimo Cabigao are two of the members of
TOMMI, each being an operator and grantee of such certificate of public
convenience.
On
10 October 1977, Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular 77-42
which phases out old and dilapidated taxis; refusing registration to taxi units
within the National Capitol Region having year models over 6 years old.
Pursuant to the above BOT circular, Director of the Bureau of Land
Transportation (BLT) issued Implementing Circular 52, dated 15 August 1980,
instructing the Regional Director, the MV Registrars and other personnel of
BLT, all within the NCR, to implement said Circular, and formulating a schedule
of phase-out of vehicles to be allowed and accepted for registration as public
conveyances. In accordance therewith, cabs of model 1971 were phase-out in
registration year 1978; those of model 1972, in 1979; those of model 1973, in
1980; and those of model 1974, in 1981.
On
27 January 1981, petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT (Case 80-7553),
seeking to nullify MC 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. On 16
February 1981, petitioners filed before the BOT a “Manifestation and Urgent
Motion”, praying for an early hearing of their petition. The case was heard on
20 February 1981. On 28 November 1981, petitioners filed before the same Board
a “Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Resolve or Decide Main Petition” praying
that the case be resolved or decided not later than 10 December 1981 to enable
them, in case of denial, to avail of whatever remedy they may have under the
law for the protection of their interests before their 1975 model cabs are
phased-out on 1 January 1982. Petitioners, through its President, allegedly
made personal follow-ups of the case, but was later informed that the records
of the case could not be located. On 29 December 1981, the present Petition was
instituted.
The
Supreme Court denied the writs prayed for and dismissed the petition; without
costs.
1.
Procedural and Substantive Due Process; Statutory Construction: “May”
PD 101 grants to the Board of Transportation the power 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. Leeway was accorded the Board giving 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.
PD 101 grants to the Board of Transportation the power 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. Leeway was accorded the Board giving 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.
2.
Dispensing with a public hearing prior to issuance of Circulars not violative
of procedural due process
Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars is not violative of procedural due process. Previous notice and hearing as elements of due process, are constitutionally required for the protection of life or vested property rights, as well as of liberty, when its limitation or loss takes place in consequence of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, generally dependent upon a past act or event which has to be established or ascertained. It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern future conduct of a class or persons or enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise. (Central Bank vs. Cloribel and Banco Filipino)
Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars is not violative of procedural due process. Previous notice and hearing as elements of due process, are constitutionally required for the protection of life or vested property rights, as well as of liberty, when its limitation or loss takes place in consequence of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, generally dependent upon a past act or event which has to be established or ascertained. It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern future conduct of a class or persons or enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise. (Central Bank vs. Cloribel and Banco Filipino)
3.
Adoption of a reasonable standard; Requirement of due process met
It is impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation to determine its road-worthiness, not to speak of the fact that it can open the door to the adoption of multiple standards, possible collusion, and even graft and corruption. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The product of experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated, their cost recovered, and a fair return on investment obtained. They are also generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public specially considering that they are in continuous operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours per shift. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness, the requirement of due process has been met.
4. Equal Protection of the Law; Substantial distinction; Rationale of initial implementation in Metro Manila
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.
The Circular was enforced initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in said metropolis, compared to those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use (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. The implementation of the Circular outside Metro Manila was also envisioned in MC 77-42 as its provision provides that “for an orderly implementation of this Memorandum Circular, the rules … shall immediately be effective in Metro Manila. Its implementation outside Metro Manila shall be carried out only after the project has been implemented in Metro Manila and only after the date has been determined by the Board.” Further, the implementation of the Circulars in Cebu City is already being effected, with the BOT in the process of conducting studies regarding the operation of taxicabs in other cities.
It is impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation to determine its road-worthiness, not to speak of the fact that it can open the door to the adoption of multiple standards, possible collusion, and even graft and corruption. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The product of experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated, their cost recovered, and a fair return on investment obtained. They are also generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public specially considering that they are in continuous operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours per shift. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness, the requirement of due process has been met.
4. Equal Protection of the Law; Substantial distinction; Rationale of initial implementation in Metro Manila
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.
The Circular was enforced initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in said metropolis, compared to those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use (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. The implementation of the Circular outside Metro Manila was also envisioned in MC 77-42 as its provision provides that “for an orderly implementation of this Memorandum Circular, the rules … shall immediately be effective in Metro Manila. Its implementation outside Metro Manila shall be carried out only after the project has been implemented in Metro Manila and only after the date has been determined by the Board.” Further, the implementation of the Circulars in Cebu City is already being effected, with the BOT in the process of conducting studies regarding the operation of taxicabs in other cities.
5.
Rationale behind exercise of police power
The overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It may also regulate property rights. The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.
The overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society. It may also regulate property rights. The necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded.