Week 2 Case 3 G.R. No. 213088 Flashcards
Is the six-month suspension within the LTFRB’s power to impose and is it reasonable?
Yes. Section 16(n) of Commonwealth Act. No. 146, otherwise known as the Public Service Act, and Section 5(b) of E.O. 202 support LTFRB’s power of suspension.
Section 16(n) of Commonwealth Act. No. 146, otherwise known as the Public Service Act, provides:
Section 16. Proceedings of the Commission, upon notice and hearing. - The Commission shall have power, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the rules and provisions of this Act, subject to the limitations and exceptions mentioned and saving provisions to the contrary:
x x x x
(n) To suspend or revoke any certificate issued under the provisions of this Act whenever the holder thereof has violated or willfully and contumaciously refused to comply with any order rule or regulation of the Commission or any provision of this Act: Provided, That the Commission, for good cause, may prior to the hearing suspend for a period not to exceed thirty days any certificate or the exercise of any right or authority issued or granted under this Act by order of the Commission, whenever such step shall in the judgment of the Commission be necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience to the public or to private interests.
x x x x
Also, Section 5(b) of E.O. 202 states:
Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. The Board shall have the following powers and functions:
Also, Section 5(b) of E.O. 202 states:
Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. The Board shall have the following powers and functions:
x x x x
b. To issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience or permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation services provided by motorized vehicles, and to prescribe the appropriate terms and conditions therefor;
x x x x
What are the violations of the respondent?
In the present case, respondent is guilty of several violations of the law, to wit:
(1) lack of petitioner’s approval of the sale and transfer of the CPC which respondent bought from Cue;
(2) operating the ill-fated bus under its name when the same is registered under the name of Dagupan Bus Co., Inc.;
(3) attaching a vehicle license plate to the ill-fated bus when such plate belongs to a different bus owned by Cue; and
(4) operating the subject bus under the authority of a different CPC.
What makes matters worse is that respondent knowingly and blatantly committed these violations.
Why was the Court not persuaded with the respondent’s contentions that the suspension of the operation of 186 buses covered by its 28 CPCs, considering that only one bus unit, covered by a single CPC, was involved in the subject accident, is unreasonable?
It bears to note that the suspension of respondent’s 28 CPCs is not only because of the findings of petitioner that the ill-fated bus was not roadworthy. Rather, and more importantly, the suspension of the 28 CPCs was also brought about by respondent’s wanton disregard and obstinate defiance of the regulations issued by petitioner, which is tantamount to a willful and contumacious refusal to comply with the requirements of law or of the orders, rules or regulations issued by petitioner and which is punishable, under the law, by suspension or revocation of any of its CPCs.
What are the factors considered in granting the suspension of CPCs?
The power to suspend the CPCs issued to public utility vehicles depends on its:
(1) assessment of the gravity of the violation;
(2) the potential and actual harm to the public; and
(3) the policy impact of its own actions.
What does the grant of a CPC entail?
A grant of a certificate of public convenience confers no property rights but is a mere license or privilege, and such privilege is forfeited when the grantee fails to comply with his commitments behind which lies the paramount interest of the public, for public necessity cannot be made to wait, nor sacrificed for private convenience.
A certificate of public convenience constitutes neither a franchise nor a contract, confers no property right, and is a mere license or privilege. The holder of such certificate does not acquire a property right in the route covered thereby. Nor does it confer upon the holder any proprietary right or interest of franchise in the public highways. Revocation of this certificate deprives him of no vested right.
Did the LTFRB commit grave abuse of authority?
No.
Contrary to its contention, this is not simply a case of one erring bus unit. Instead, the series or combination of violations it has committed with respect to the ill-fated bus is indicative of its design and intent to blatantly and maliciously defy the law and disregard, with impunity, the regulations imposed by petitioner upon all holders of CPCs. Thus, the Court finds nothing irregular in petitioner’s imposition of the penalty of six months suspension of the operations of respondent’s 28 CPCs. In other words, petitioner did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing the questioned penalty.
Lastly, the suspension of respondent’s CPCs finds relevance in light of the series of accidents met by different bus units owned by different operators in recent events. This serves as a reminder to all operators of public utility vehicles that their franchises and CPCs are mere privileges granted by the government. As such, they are sternly warned that they should always keep in mind that, as common carriers, they bear the responsibility of exercising extraordinary diligence in the transportation of their passengers. Moreover, they should conscientiously comply with the requirements of the law in the conduct of their operations, failing which they shall suffer the consequences of their own actions or inaction.
