Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (1982)

Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. BOT, 119  SCRA 597 (1982)

Title of the Case: Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs. Board of Transportation, 117 SCRA 597

Nature: Petition for "Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order" filed by the Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc., et al, and seeks to declare the nullity of Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 of the Board of Transportation, and Memorandum Circular No. 52, of the Bureau of Land Transportation.

Keywords: TaxiCab Operators, phasing out of old cars, Equal Protection of the Law, Substantive Due Process

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

Facts:

• On October 10, 1977, The Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 that aimed to phase out and replace old dilapidated taxis to insure only safe comfortable units are used by the public, to respond to complaints by metro manila residents regarding the old dilapidated taxis, to make the commuting public more comfortable, have more convenience and safety. 6 years is enough for taxi operators to get back cost of unit plus profits. à no car beyond 6 years can still be operated as taxi.

• Taxis model 1971 were considered withdrawn on Dec 31, 1977 à applied it to succeeding years just add one year to both dates. à they had to surrender the expired taxi’s plates to the BoT for turnover to Land Transpo Commission.

• Pursuant to the above BOT circular, respondent Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) issued Implementing Circular No. 52, dated August 15, 1980, instructing the Regional Director, the MV Registrars and other personnel of BLT, all within the NCR, to implement the phasing out of the taxis.

• On January 27, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT, docketed as Case No. 80-7553, seeking to nullify MC No. 77-42 or to stop its implementation; to allow the registration and operation in 1981 and subsequent years of taxicabs of model 1974, as well as those of earlier models which were phased-out, provided that, at the time of registration, they are roadworthy and fit for operation.

The issues were in the form of questions that the petitioners presented to the SC through a query.

a. Did BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned memorandum circulars in accord with the manner required by Presidential Decree No. 101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners' constitutional right to procedural due process?

b. Granting, arguendo, that respondents did comply with the procedural requirements imposed by Presidential Decree No. 101, would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed memorandum circulars violate the petitioners' constitutional rights to.

            (1) Equal protection of the law;

            (2) Substantive due process; and

            (3) Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard?

Issue:

1.       WON the procedural and substantive due process rights of the taxi operators were violated - NO.

2.       WON their equal protection rights were violated - NO.

Ratio: On Procedural and Substantive Due Process:

Presidential Decree No. 101 grants to the Board of Transportation the power

To fix just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices, measurements, or service to be furnished, imposed, observed, and followed by operators of public utility motor vehicles.

Section 2 of said Decree provides procedural guidelines for said agency to follow in the exercise of its powers:

Sec. 2. Exercise of powers. — In the exercise of the powers granted in the preceding section, the             Board shall proceed promptly along the method of legislative inquiry.

            Apart from its own investigation and studies, the Board, in its discretion, may require the cooperation and assistance of the Bureau of Transportation, the Philippine Constabulary, particularly the Highway Patrol Group, the support agencies within the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, or any other government office or agency that may be able to furnish useful information or data in the formulation of the Board of any policy, plan or program in the implementation of this Decree.

            The Board may also call conferences, require the submission of position papers or other documents, information, or data by operators or other persons that may be affected by the implementation of this Decree, or employ any other suitable means of inquiry.

• Petitioner claim that they were denied due process because they were not asked to submit position papers or to attend conferences regarding the assailed circular

- SC held that the PD provides a wide leeway as to how the board will choose to gather data in formulating its policy. NOT ALL OPTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE DONE FOR POLICY TO BE VALID. The board has the choice of which avenue to pursue in collecting data.

- Petitioner also claim that 6 year limit was arbitrarily set and oppressive and they want each taxi cab to be inspected regarding their condition whether or not it was still safe and roadworthy despite age.

- Court held that their proposed standard is not practicable and can open the door to multiple standards and corruption

- Court furthers aid that 6 years is a reasonable time based on experience and based on cost and fair returns on the units

- Court held that a uniform standard is best and fair

On Equal Protection of the Law:

Petitioner allege that the circular targets and singles out the taxi industry = violation of their equal protection rights

-  Court said NO. Circular of the same kind are also being implemented in other cities like Cebu and is also in the process of conducting the same studies and policy formulations in other cities.

-  Manila was first because of the heavier traffic pressure and the more constant use of the taxis in MM.

-  SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION - In so far as the non-application of the assailed Circulars to other transportation services is concerned, it need only be recalled that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same treatment be accorded all and sundry. It applies to things or persons Identically or similarly situated. It permits of classification of the object or subject of the law provided classification is reasonable or based on substantial distinction, which make for real differences, and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. What is required under the equal protection clause is the uniform operation by legal means so that all persons under Identical or similar circumstance would be accorded the same treatment both in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed. The challenged Circulars satisfy the foregoing criteria.

CONCLUSIONS:

-   Manila has more traffic which means that taxis in Metro Manila are more heavily used and more likely to   deteriorate.

-            The public has a right to convenience, comfort and safety in their public commute.

-            The danger posed by the dilapidated and old taxis is a valid nuisance that the Board can abate through the circular that it passed.

-            Absent a clear showing of any repugnancy of the circular it is deemed valid.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Writs prayed for are denied and this Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.

NOTE: The State in the exercise of its police power, there is no infringement of the equal protection clause because it is common knowledge that taxicabs in Manila are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use, creating a substantial distinction from taxicabs  and the  Court that implementation of the Circulars in Cebu City is already being effected, with the BOT in the process of conducting studies regarding the operation of taxicabs in other cities enunciated in the preambular clauses of the challenged BOT Circular, the overriding consideration is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society.  It may also regulate property rights.  In the language of Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando “the necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded”.