G.R. No. 148339 - Lucena Grand Central Terminal Inc. vs. JAC Liner Inc.

Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., petitioner, claimed legal interest as grantee of an exclusive franchise to construct, finance, establish, operate and maintain a common bus-jeepney terminal facility for Lucena City.
JAC Liner, Inc., respondent, a common carrier operating buses to and from Lucena City, filed a petition for prohibition and injunction against the City of Lucena, its Mayor, and the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Lucena, assailing the constitutionality of certain city ordinances.

Ordinance No. 1631 granted a franchise to Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc.; provided a twenty-five year term renewable for another twenty-five years; and contained Section 4(c) directing the City Government not to grant any third party any privilege or concession to operate a bus, mini-bus and/or jeepney terminal.
Ordinance No. 1778 regulated entrance into Lucena City of buses, mini-buses and out-of-town passenger jeepneys; prohibited such vehicles from entering the city for picking-up and/or dropping-off passengers and directed them to the common terminal; declared temporary terminals inoperable; amended Ordinance No. 1557 to require use of the Lucena Grand Central Terminal at Diversion Road, Brgy. Ilayang Dupay, and to state that no other terminals shall be situated inside or within Lucena City.

The ordinances professedly aimed to alleviate traffic congestion by localizing bus and jeepney terminals outside the city proper and directing all carriers to the common terminal.
The ordinances compelled carriers maintaining terminals within the city, including JAC Liner, Inc., to close such terminals and use the franchised common terminal operated by Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., subjecting users to fees and charges.

The petition for prohibition and injunction was heard by Branch 54, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena City; the parties agreed to submit the case on pleadings without presenting evidence on November 25, 1998.
RTC Order of March 31, 1999: declared City Ordinance No. 1631 valid insofar as it granted a franchise, but declared Section 4(c) illegal and ultra vires; declared City Ordinance No. 1778 null and void and ordered the issuance of a writ of prohibition and/or injunction restraining city officials from implementing specified provisions of Ordinance No. 1778; denied intervenor's Motion to Dismiss....(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it failed to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General copies of the orders it issued, in view of Section 22, Rule 3, and Sections 3 and 4, Rule 63, Rules of Court.

Whether the City of Lucena properly exercised its police power in enacting Ordinance No. 1631 and Ordinance No. 1778.
Whether the measures adopted were reasonably necessary for the public objective and not unduly oppressive upon individuals, i.e., whether there was a concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method.