Case Digest (G.R. No. 148339) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc. (G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2005), JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier plying routes to and from Lucena City, filed a petition for prohibition and injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City against the City of Lucena, its Mayor, and the Sangguniang Panlungsod. It assailed City Ordinance No. 1631, which granted Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. an exclusive twenty-five-year franchise (renewable for another twenty-five years) to construct, finance, establish, operate, and maintain a common bus-jeepney terminal, and prohibited the city from granting any other terminal franchise (Sec. 4[c]). It likewise attacked City Ordinance No. 1778, which amended prior ordinances to prohibit all buses, mini-buses, and out-of-town jeepneys from establishing or using any terminal within Lucena City proper and compelled them to use petitioner’s common terminal outside the poblacion. Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. Case Digest (G.R. No. 148339) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Case
- Respondent JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier operating buses to and from Lucena City, filed a petition for prohibition and injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, assailing City Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778 as unconstitutional for (a) invalid exercise of police power, (b) undue taking of private property, and (c) violation of the constitutional prohibition against monopolies.
- Petitioner Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. (LGCTI), grantee of the exclusive franchise under Ordinance No. 1631, was allowed to intervene, claiming a legal interest in defending its franchise.
- Salient Provisions of the Ordinances
- Ordinance No. 1631 (Franchise Ordinance)
- Grants LGCTI an exclusive 25-year franchise (renewable for another 25 years) to construct, finance, establish, operate, and maintain a common bus-jeepney terminal facility.
- Section 4(c) prohibits the city from granting any third party privilege or concession to operate a bus, mini-bus, or jeepney terminal.
- Ordinance No. 1778 (Terminal Regulation Ordinance)
- Prohibits all buses, mini-buses, and out-of-town passenger jeepneys from entering Lucena City proper for loading/unloading, directing them to the common terminal.
- Declares all temporary terminals in Lucena City inoperable.
- Amends prior ordinances to mandate exclusive use of the LGCTI terminal and bar any other terminals within the city.
- Procedural History
- RTC Proceedings
- Parties dispensed with evidence; submitted on pleadings only (November 25, 1998).
- RTC Decision (March 31, 1999):
- Declared Ordinance No. 1631 valid under police power, but struck down Sec. 4(c) as ultra vires under the Local Government Code.
- RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (August 6, 1999).
- Appellate Proceedings
- CA Decision (December 15, 2000): Dismissed the petition; affirmed RTC orders.
- CA denied LGCTI’s motion for reconsideration (June 5, 2001).
- LGCTI filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction over the petition despite the absence of prior notice to the Solicitor General?
- Did the City of Lucena properly exercise its police power in enacting Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)