Case Digest (G.R. No. 148339)
Facts:
Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. v. JAC Liner, Inc., G.R. No. 148339, February 23, 2005, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio-Morales, J., writing for the Court.JAC Liner, Inc. (respondent in this appeal) — a common carrier operating buses to and from Lucena City — filed a petition for prohibition and injunction in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City assailing City Ordinance No. 1631 and Ordinance No. 1778 as unconstitutional measures that (it alleged) represented an invalid exercise of police power, amounted to an undue taking of private property, and created an unlawful monopoly. Ordinance No. 1631 granted a 25‑year franchise (renewable for another 25 years) to Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. (the intervenor below and petitioner before the Supreme Court) to construct, operate and maintain a common bus-jeepney terminal, and included a provision (Sec. 4(c)) forbidding the city from granting any third party the privilege of operating another terminal. Ordinance No. 1778 directed all buses, mini‑buses and out‑of‑town jeepneys to use the franchised common terminal outside the city proper and declared other temporary terminals inoperable.
Petitioner Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. intervened in the RTC proceedings claiming an interest as the grantee of the exclusive franchise. The parties agreed to submit the case on the pleadings after a hearing on November 25, 1998. By Order dated March 31, 1999, Branch 54 of the Lucena RTC declared Ordinance No. 1631 valid except that Sec. 4(c) was illegal and ultra vires as contravening the Local Government Code (RA No. 7160); it declared Ordinance No. 1778 null and void in key provisions (including Secs. 1(b), 3(c) and 3(e)), and issued a writ prohibiting city officials from enforcing those provisions against carriers such as JAC Liner. The RTC denied the intervenor's motion to dismiss.
The intervenor moved for reconsideration, which was denied on August 6, 1999. The intervenor then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court; the Court on November 24, 1999 referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA). On December 15, 2000 the CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the RTC orders; its denial of the intervenor's motion for reconsideration was resolved by resolution dated June 5, 2001. Petitioner thereafter sought review before the Supreme Court, raising, prin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction despite the alleged lack of notice to the Solicitor General under the rules governing actions attacking ordinances?
- Did the City of Lucena properly exercise its police power in enacting Ordinance Nos. 1631 and 1778 (including the grant of an exclusive franchise and the prohibi...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)