Case Digest (G.R. No. 119528)
Facts:
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Grand International Airways, Inc., G.R. No. 119528, March 26, 1997, the Supreme Court Second Division, Torres, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The decision was rendered by the Second Division; Chairman Regalado and Justice Puno concurred; Justices Romero and Mendoza took no part.On November 24, 1994, Grand International Airways, Inc. (GrandAir) filed with the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN), docketed CAB Case No. EP-12711. The CAB scheduled an initial hearing for December 16, 1994 and directed GrandAir to serve its application on existing scheduled Philippine domestic operators. On December 14, 1994 GrandAir filed its compliance and concurrently requested issuance of a Temporary Operating Permit (TOP).
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL)—a legislative-franchise holder—filed an opposition on December 16, 1994 contending, among other grounds, that GrandAir lacked the requisite legislative franchise under Article XII, Section 11 of the Constitution and that the CAB therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The CAB Chief Hearing Officer denied PAL’s opposition by order dated December 20, 1994. PAL again opposed issuance of the TOP on grounds of unfitness and lack of urgent public need.
On December 23, 1994 the CAB issued Resolution No. 119(92) granting GrandAir a TOP for three months (December 22, 1994 to March 22, 1995). PAL moved for reconsideration on January 11, 1995; the CAB denied the motion in Resolution No. 02(95) dated February 2, 1995, expressly relying on Section 10(c)(1) of Republic Act No. 776 (RA 776) and precedents such as Philippine Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Albano v. Reyes to justify its jurisdiction to issue TOPs and to process CPCN applications even in the absence of a legislative franchise. Upon GrandAir’s motion the TOP was extended on March 21, 1995 for six months (to September 22, 1995).
PAL filed this Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on April 3, 1995, seeking to prohibit the CAB from exercising jurisdiction over GrandAir’s CPCN application and to annul the TOP issued to GrandAir. PAL relied on Article XII, Section 11 and Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution and on a 1989 Department of Justice Opinion (Opinion No. 163, S. 1989) to argue that a legislative franchise is a prerequisite to issuance of a CPCN/TOP. GrandAir and the CAB defended the CAB’s action by citing Albano v. Reyes and...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the CAB act without or in excess of its jurisdiction such that a Rule 65 remedy is warranted to prohibit it from hearing GrandAir’s CPCN application and from issuing a TOP?
- Is a legislative franchise an indispensable prerequisite to the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or a Temporary Operating Permit to a domestic air carrier unde...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)