Title
Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association of the Philippines vs. Government of Manila City, Quezon City, Valenzuela City, and others
Case
G.R. No. 209479
Decision Date
Jul 11, 2023
The Supreme Court ruled that the MMDA lacks exclusive authority over Metro Manila traffic regulation, affirming LGUs' autonomy to enact local traffic ordinances under the Local Government Code, without conflict with the MMDA Law or RA 4136.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 209479)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Creation and Powers of LTO
    • June 20, 1964 – Republic Act No. 4136 (LTO Law) establishes the Land Transportation Commission (later LTO) and grants it, among others, the power to confiscate driver’s licenses and issue temporary receipts (§ 29) and prohibits LGUs from enacting conflicting ordinances (§ 62).
    • Subsequent reorganizations by EOs 546 (1979), 1011 (1985), and 125 (1987) rename and reassign the LTO but do not expressly alter its license-confiscation power.
  • LGU Traffic-Regulation Powers under the LGC
    • RA 7160 (Local Government Code, 1991) §§ 447(5)(v–vi) & 458(5)(v–vi) empower municipal and city sanggunians to enact ordinances regulating traffic, streets, and public places.
  • Creation and Powers of MMDA
    • RA 7924 (1995) creates the MMDA to coordinate metro-wide services.
    • § 3(b) includes “transport and traffic management” among metro-wide services.
    • § 5(e) empowers the MMDA to set traffic policies in Metro Manila and coordinate enforcement; § 5(f) mandates a single ticketing system and authorizes the MMDA to fix, impose, and collect fines and to confiscate, suspend, or revoke driver’s licenses, “notwithstanding” RA 4136.
  • LGU Traffic Codes and OVR Provisions
    • From 2003–2005, the 17 cities + 1 municipality in Metro Manila enact traffic-management ordinances providing for an “Ordinance Violation Receipt” (OVR) system: deputized local enforcers confiscate licenses and issue a 5-working-day temporary driver’s license receipt, to be honored across Metro Manila.
  • Proceedings Below
    • Petitioners (public-utility transport operators and drivers’ associations) file for injunction and mandamus in the CA, challenging the OVR provisions as conflicting with RA 4136 and RA 7924, and seek an order directing the MMDA to implement the single ticketing system.
    • CA (Dec. 7, 2012 Decision; Oct. 3, 2013 Resolution) upholds the LGU ordinances as valid, finding no conflict with the LTO Law or MMDA Law, and denies mandamus for lack of strong evidence of MMDA’s neglect.
    • Petitioners elevate the case to the Supreme Court by Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues:

  • Did the CA err in declaring the LGU traffic ordinances (with OVR provisions) valid?
  • Did the CA err in ruling that respondent LGUs have the authority to confiscate licenses and issue OVRs?
  • Is MMDA Resolution No. 12-02 (uniform ticketing system) rendered nugatory by the continued LGU OVRs?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.