Case Summary (G.R. No. L-59234)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioners: TOMMI (domestic corporation), Ace Transportation Corporation, Felicisimo Cabigao.
Respondents: Board of Transportation; Director, Bureau of Land Transportation.
Key Dates
• October 10, 1977: BOT issues Memorandum Circular No. 77-42.
• August 15, 1980: BLT issues Implementing Circular No. 52.
• January 27, 1981: Petition filed before BOT (Case No. 80-7553).
• February 20 & March 27, 1981: Hearings and additional evidence before BOT.
• December 29, 1981: Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed in the Supreme Court.
• September 30, 1982: Decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1973 Constitution (in force at decision).
• Presidential Decree No. 101 — grants BOT power to fix “just and reasonable standards” and prescribes procedural method (“legislative inquiry”) for rule-making.
• Relevant jurisprudence: Central Bank v. Cloribel (44 SCRA 307), Edu v. Ericta (35 SCRA 481), Samson v. Mayor of Bacolod (60 SCRA 267).
Procedural History
Petitioners sought nullification of BOT MC No. 77-42 and BLT IC No. 52, which phased out taxis older than six years. Before BOT, they presented testimony and documents and requested resolution. Upon alleged inaction and loss of records, they elevated the dispute to the Supreme Court via petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, preliminary injunction and TRO.
Procedural Due Process
Issue: Whether BOT/BLT violated PD 101’s procedural requirements.
Analysis: PD 101 Sec. 2 affords BOT discretion to gather data by investigations, conferences or position papers—but does not mandate public hearings. The Court held that rule-making affecting future conduct need not follow quasi-judicial procedures (Central Bank v. Cloribel). The absence of specific conferences or calls for position papers did not deny due process.
Substantive Due Process
Issue: Whether a rigid six-year service limit is arbitrary.
Analysis: A uniform lifespan standard promotes public safety and prevents variable evaluations that could foster corruption. Empirical studies show that by six years taxis have depreciated and risk passenger comfort and safety. The rule is reasonable, non-arbitrary and meets substantive due process.
Equal Protection
Issue: Whether initial enforcement in Metro Manila and exclusive focus on taxis violates equal protection.
Analysis
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-59234)
Parties and Representation
- Petitioners
- Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI), a domestic corporation of taxicab grantees.
- Felicisimo Cabigao and Ace Transportation Corporation, individual members and grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience.
- Respondents
- The Board of Transportation (BOT).
- The Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT).
Factual and Regulatory Background
- BOT Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 (October 10, 1977)
- Government policy to phase out “old and dilapidated” taxis for public safety and comfort.
- Prescription of a six-year maximum taxi lifetime, with model-year withdrawal schedule beginning December 31, 1977.
- Immediate effect in Metro Manila; phased implementation elsewhere upon BOT determination.
- BLT Implementing Circular No. 52 (August 15, 1980)
- Enforcement of BOT MC 77-42 within the National Capital Region without further dropping orders.
- Detailed automatic phase-out schedule by year-model (e.g., 1974 models in 1980; 1975 models in 1981).
Procedural History Before the BOT
- Petition filed with BOT (Case No. 80-7553) on January 27, 1981
- Sought nullification or suspension of MC 77-42 and permission to register roadworthy taxis of all model years.
- Manifestations and hearings
- Urgent motion for early hearing (February 16, 1981); hearing held February 20, 1981.
- Presentation of testimony and initial documentary evidence; additional evidence filed March 27, 1981.
- Manifestation and urgent motion to resolve the case by December 10, 1981.
- Alleged misplacement of case records by BOT.
Petition Before the Supreme Court
- Petition filed December 29, 1981, seeking:
A. Declaratory relief on whether the BOT and BLT circulars complied with procedural due process under Presidential Decree No. 101.
B. Determination whether the circulars, if procedurally valid, violated petitioners’ rights to:- Equal protection of the laws.
- Substantive due process.
- Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification.
Statutory Framework: Presidential Decree No. 101
- Section 4: Grant of power to BOT “to fix just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices, measurements, or service” for public utility motor vehicles.
- Section 2: Procedural guidelines
- BOT may conduct legi