Title
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Civil Aeronautics Board
Case
G.R. No. 119528
Decision Date
Mar 26, 1997
CAB authorized to issue CPCN/TOP to GrandAir without legislative franchise; SC upheld delegation under R.A. No. 776, promoting competition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 119528)

Petitioner, Respondent, and Key Dates

– GrandAir filed its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) on November 24, 1994 (CAB Case No. EP-12711).
– Initial hearing set for December 16, 1994; GrandAir requested a Temporary Operating Permit (TOP) on December 14, 1994.
– CAB issued TOP on December 23, 1994 (valid until March 22, 1995), extended on March 21, 1995 to September 22, 1995.
– PAL filed its Rule 65 petition on April 3, 1995. Decision rendered March 26, 1997.

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 11 (public utilities franchise requirement) and Article VI, Section 1 (vested legislative power) govern. Republic Act No. 776, as amended by P.D. 1462, delegates to the CAB the power to issue, deny, amend or revoke TOPs and CPCNs under Section 10(C)(1) and prescribes fitness and public-need criteria under Section 21.

Procedural History Before the CAB

PAL filed its opposition on December 16, 1994, challenging CAB’s jurisdiction because GrandAir lacked a legislative franchise and alleging deficiencies in GrandAir’s application form and public-need showing. On December 20, 1994, the CAB denied PAL’s jurisdictional objection, citing Section 10(C)(1) of RA 776 and the Court of Appeals’ Avia Filipinas decision. PAL’s motion for reconsideration of the TOP issuance was likewise denied on February 2, 1995, by CAB Resolution No. 02 (95).

Petitioner's Jurisdictional Argument

PAL contends that Article XII, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution and Article VI, Section 1 reserve to Congress the exclusive grant of legislative franchises for public utilities, including air carriers. Therefore, CAB lacks jurisdiction to entertain or grant GrandAir’s CPCN or TOP absent a prior franchise.

Respondents’ Legal Position

GrandAir maintains that Cab may grant a CPCN or TOP pending completion of franchise proceedings, relying on:

  1. Albano vs. Reyes (175 SCRA 264) – administrative agencies may authorize public utilities when empowered by statute;
  2. Avia Filipinas (CA-G.R. No. 23365, Oct. 30, 1991) and Silangan Airways (CA-G.R. No. 36787, July 19, 1995) – uphold Cab’s power under RA 776 to issue CPCNs and TOPs without a legislative franchise.
    The Department of Justice Opinion No. 163, s. 1989 further distinguishes the legislative franchise as sovereign in nature, and the CPCN/TOP as purely regulatory.

Statutory and Constitutional Framework

Article XII, Section 11 recognizes Congress’ power over franchises but does not prohibit delegation. RA 776, Section 10(A) grants the CAB broad economic-regulation and supervisory authority over air carriers, while Section 10(C)(1) specifically authorizes the CAB to issue or revoke CPCNs and TOPs “upon its own initiative.” Section 21 sets the fitness and public-need standards for permit issuance.

Jurisprudential Developments on Delegation

The Court has long recognized that Congress may delegate rule-making or licensing authority to specialized administrative bodies when clearly circumscribed by legislative standards. In Albano vs. Reyes, the Supreme Court affirmed that administrative issuance of public-utility authorizations is valid when provided by statute. Subsequent appellate rulings have consistently applied this doctrine to air-carrier licensing.

Nature and Requirements of CPCNs and TOPs

A CPCN/TOP is an administrative authorization granting an applicant the right to commence public-utility operations upon meeting statutory requirements—fitness, financial capacity, safety measures, and demonstration of public convenience and necessity—not an independent legi

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.