Case Summary (G.R. No. 172031)
Petitions and Reliefs Sought
Petitioners sought writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and TRO to declare Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 and BLT Circular No. 52 null and to enjoin their implementation. They alternatively sought that taxicabs be allowed to register and operate provided they were roadworthy and fit, despite being of models older than the six-year ceiling imposed by the Circulars.
Administrative Directives Challenged
BOT Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 established a policy to phase out taxicabs older than six years, specifying annual cut-off model years (e.g., as of Dec. 31, 1977 all Model 1971 and earlier withdrawn; as of Dec. 31, 1978 Model 1972 withdrawn, etc.), initially effective in Metro-Manila and to be extended elsewhere after studies and further BOT determination. BLT Implementing Circular No. 52 instructed BLT personnel in the National Capital Region to refuse registration of taxi units with models over six years old and to treat such units as automatically dropped as public utilities, prescribing a concrete phase-out schedule (e.g., Model 1974 phased out in 1980).
Factual Background and Administrative Processing
Under the BOT Circular and BLT implementing action, taxicabs of model years 1971 through 1974 were phased out in successive registration years through 1981. Petitioners filed an administrative petition with the BOT (Case No. 80-7553) on January 27, 1981, attacking MC No. 77-42 and seeking permission to register older but roadworthy cabs. The BOT heard the matter (testimony and documentary evidence were presented, with additional proofs filed March 27, 1981). Petitioners requested resolution by December 10, 1981 to protect model 1975 cabs pending phase-out; they later alleged difficulties in locating the records. When relief was not granted, petitioners filed the present petition in the Court.
Issues Presented to the Court
Petitioners framed the Court’s review around (A) whether the BOT and BLT promulgated the challenged Circulars in accordance with procedural requirements of PD No. 101 (procedural due process), and (B) even if procedural requirements were met, whether enforcement of the Circulars violated petitioners’ constitutional rights to equal protection, substantive due process, and protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard.
Procedural Due Process Analysis under PD No. 101
PD No. 101 grants BOT power “to fix just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices, measurements, or service” for public utility operators and prescribes that the Board “proceed promptly along the method of legislative inquiry,” with discretionary options to gather information (investigation, studies, requesting cooperation from agencies, calling conferences, requiring position papers, or other suitable means). The Court held that these provisions afford broad discretion to the BOT in choosing inquiry methods and that it is not mandatory to hold a public conference or require position papers prior to promulgating general regulations affecting future conduct. Reliance on other sources of inquiry by the BOT (not limited to affected operators) is permissible. The Court cited Central Bank v. Cloribel to emphasize that prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern future conduct unless the law provides otherwise. Accordingly, petitioners were not deprived of procedural due process by the absence of a pre-promulgation hearing or specific solicitation of position papers.
Substantive Due Process and Reasonableness of the Six-Year Standard
Petitioners argued the six-year ceiling was arbitrary because roadworthiness depends on maintenance and individual vehicle condition. The Court recognized the practical impossibility and risks (multiple standards, collusion, potential graft) of subjecting each taxi to constant individualized evaluation. The Court accepted the BOT’s policy judgment that a six-year service life is a reasonable, uniform standard: experience showed taxis depreciate and generally become dilapidated by six years, having recovered cost and obtained reasonable return, and are subjected to continuous heavy use (three shifts daily) rendering them less fit for safe and comfortable service. The Court found the six-year rule a reasonable regulatory standard and not arbitrary, concluding the requirement of due process was satisfied insofar as substantive reasonableness is concerned.
Equal Protection Clause Analysis
Petitioners contended the Circulars violated equal protection because they were enforced initially in Metro Manila only and targeted the taxi industry. The Court observed the BOT Circular expressly contemplated phased implementation outside Metro Manila after studies and determination by the Board, and the Court understood implementation was underway in other cities (e.g., Cebu). The BOT’s decision to implement first in Metro Manila was justified by substantial distinctions: Metro Manila taxis face heavier traffic pressure and more continuous use than in other cities. The equal protection clause permits classifications that are reasonable and based on substantial distinctions; it does not require identical treatment of dissimilarly situated persons. The Court reiterated that classification is permissible if it rests on real differences and applies uniformly to members of the class. Given the different operating conditions in Metro Manila and the public-safety-focused purpose of the Circulars, the class
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172031)
Court and Citation
- Decision reported at 202 Phil. 925, En Banc, G.R. No. L-59234, dated September 30, 1982.
- Decision authored by Justice Melencio-Herrera.
Parties
- Petitioners:
- Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI), a domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators and grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience to operate taxicabs within the City of Manila and other places in Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic.
- Felicisimo Cabigao, member of TOMMI and grantee/operator of a certificate of public convenience.
- Ace Transportation Corporation, member of TOMMI and grantee/operator of a certificate of public convenience.
- Respondents:
- The Board of Transportation (BOT).
- The Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT).
Relief Sought
- Petition for "Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order."
- Petitioners sought:
- Declaration of nullity of BOT Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 (dated October 10, 1977).
- Declaration of nullity of BLT Memorandum/Implementing Circular No. 52 (dated August 15, 1980).
- To stop implementation of said circulars.
- To allow registration and operation in 1981 and subsequent years of taxicabs of model 1974 and earlier models that were phased out, provided they were roadworthy and fit at the time of registration.
Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 (BOT, October 10, 1977) — Subject, Policy and Rules
- Subject as captioned by the BOT: "Phasing out and Replacement of Old and Dilapidated Taxis."
- Policy basis recited in preamble:
- Government policy to ensure only safe and comfortable units are used as public conveyances.
- Public complaints in Metro-Manila concerning continued operation of old and dilapidated taxis.
- Need to adopt a program to phase out old and dilapidated taxis to assure comfort, convenience, and safety.
- BOT belief, after studies and inquiries, that in six years of operation a taxi operator has covered costs and made reasonable profit on investment.
- Operative declaration and rules:
- No car beyond six years shall be operated as taxi.
- Implementation rules establishing annual cutoff by model year: as of Dec. 31, 1977, Model 1971 and earlier withdrawn; registration for 1978 only Model 1972 and later; as of Dec. 31, 1978, Model 1972 withdrawn, registration for 1979 only Model 1973 and later; and continuing annually so that taxis have a six-year lifetime (examples given: 1980 — Model 1974; 1981 — Model 1975; etc.).
- All taxis of earlier models ordered withdrawn at last day of registration of each year; plates to be surrendered directly to BOT for turnover to Land Transportation Commission.
- Immediate effectiveness in Metro-Manila; implementation outside Metro-Manila to follow after project implemented in Metro-Manila and after date determined by the Board.
Implementing Circular No. 52 (BLT, August 15, 1980) — Direction and Schedule
- Issued by the Director of BLT to Regional Director, MV Registrars and other BLT personnel within the National Capital Region.
- Declared that pursuant to BOT Memo-Circular No. 77-42, taxi units with year models over six years old are banned from operating as public utilities in Metro Manila.
- Prescribed that such units are to be considered automatically dropped as public utilities and do not require separate dropping orders from BOT.
- Directed refusal of registration for taxi units within the National Capital Region having year models over six years old.
- Prescribed an explicit schedule of automatic phase-out by year model with examples:
- Year model 1974 — Automatic phase-out year 1980
- 1975 — 1981
- 1976 — 1982
- 1977 — 1983
- Directive concluded with an admonition that strict compliance is desired.
Implementation Chronology and Effect
- In accordance with the circulars:
- Model 1971 cabs were phased out in registration year 1978.
- Model 1972 cabs were phased out in 1979.
- Model 1973 cabs were phased out in 1980.
- Model 1974 cabs were phased out in 1981.
- The BOT circular expressly envisioned phased implementation in Metro-Manila first, with later implementation elsewhere upon BOT determination; the Court noted implementation in Cebu City was already being effected and BOT conducting studies regarding other cities.
Administrative Proceedings Before the Board of Transportation
- January 27, 1981: Petitioners filed Petition with the BOT, docketed as Case No. 80-7553, seeking to nullify MC No. 77-42 or stop its implementation and to allow registration/operation of certain model taxis conditioned on roadworthiness.
- February 16, 1981: Petitioners filed a "Manifestation and Urgent Motion" for early hearing.
- February 20, 1981: The case was heard; petitioners presented testimonial and documentary evidence, offered same, and indicated intent to submit additional documentary proofs.
- March 27, 1981: Additional proofs submitted, attached to petitioners' pleading titled "Manifestation, Presentation of Additional Evidence and Submission of the Case for Resolution."
- November 28, 1981: Petitioners filed a "Manifestation and Urgent Motion to Resolve or Decide Main Petition," asking that case be decided not later than December 10, 1981 to preserve remedies prior to phase-out of their 1975 model cabs on January 1, 1982.
- Petitioners alleged personal follow-ups by TOMMI President; were later informed that records of the case could not be located.
Questions Presented to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners posed the following queries for Supreme Court consideration:
- A. Whether BOT and BLT promulgated the questioned memorandum circulars in accordance with the manner required by Pre