Title
Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs. Garcia, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 115381
Decision Date
Dec 23, 1994
A labor group challenged DOTC and LTFRB issuances allowing fare adjustments and CPC approvals without public hearings, violating the Public Service Act. The Supreme Court invalidated the policies, citing grave abuse of discretion and lack of due process.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 115381)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Subject Matter
    • Petitioner: Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center (KMU), representing commuters adversely affected by fare increases.
    • Respondents:
      • Hon. Jesus B. Garcia, Jr., Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC)
      • Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)
      • Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines (PBOAP)
    • Nature of Case: Certiorari contesting the constitutionality and validity of DOTC and LTFRB issuances delegating fare‐setting power to operators and presuming public need in CPC applications.
  • Chronology of Key Administrative Issuances
    • June 26, 1990 – DOTC Memorandum Order No. 90-395: Piloted a ±15% fare‐range scheme for provincial buses without LTFRB hearing.
    • March 30, 1992 – DOTC Department Order No. 92-587: Adopted deregulation policies, including fare deregulation (±15% range), presumption of need for CPC applicants.
    • October 8, 1992 – DOTC memorandum to LTFRB: Urged adoption of implementing rules for DO 92-587.
    • February 17, 1993 – LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009: Expanded fare range to +20%/−25%, established presumptive public need in CPC proceedings, and removed “prior operator” rule.
    • March 16, 1994 – PBOAP imposed a unilateral 20% fare increase under deregulation policy; LTFRB dismissed KMU’s opposition petition on March 24 for lack of merit.
    • June 20, 1994 – This Court issued Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining implementation of the fare increases and challenged issuances.

Issues:

  • Whether DOTC Department Order No. 92-587 and LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 unlawfully delegated rate‐making authority to private bus operators in violation of Section 16(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (Public Service Act) and Executive Order No. 202.
  • Whether the establishment of a presumption of public need favoring CPC applicants, shifting the burden of proof to oppositors, contravenes the Public Service Act’s requirement that applicants prove public convenience and necessity and violates due process and the Rules of Court.

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.