JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs.

LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA

JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC.

Petitioners,

CA-G.R. NO. 654321

-versus-

LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING

AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB)

Public Respondent,

x-----------------------------------------------x

COMMENT

Respondent, by the undersigned counsel and to this Honorable Court,

respectfully interposes his opposition to the Petition for Certiorari filed by
Petitioner-Complainants on the ground that arguments advanced by
petitioners are PRO-FORMA and the matters raised in said petition have
already been resolved in the Decision of the Public Respondent dated 4 May
2020.

Consequently, said petition must necessarily fail.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, submits his comments to this

petition:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE AVERMENTS OF THE PETITION:

Allegedly, this is a Petition for Certiorari filed pursuant to Rule 65 of

the Rules of Court, with a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary
mandatory injunction, assailing the Order of the Public Respondent dated 4
May 2020 the dispositive of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered and by virtue of

Commonwealth Act 146 (otherwise known as "The Public Service
Law"), as amended, and Executive Order No. 202, the Board hereby
ORDERS that the Certificate of Public Convenience of MACARIO C.
JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

SANDOVAL, now under the beneficial ownership of respondent

operator JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC., be CANCELLED and
REVERTED to the State. Therefore, upon receipt of this Decision,
respondent-operator JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. is hereby directed
to CEASE and DESIST from operating the Certificate of Public
Convenience under Case No. 2020-0123 involving ten (10) authorized
units.”

THE COURT DECISIONS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS SOUGHT TO BE

SET ASIDE:

The PETITION seeks the following:

1,) That the Decision dated 4 May 2020 issued by the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board be declared void

2.) That the instant Petition for Certiorari be GRANTED.

ALLEGED GROUND TO GRANT THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI:

1.) This Petition for Certiorari is the proper remedy against the
LTFRB’s Order of Suspension.

2.) The LTFRB’s Suspension Order is tainted with Grave Abuse of

Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction because (1) It
violates petitioner’s Property Rights; AND (2) The LTFRB has no power to
suspend operations pending administrative proceedings.

COMMENTS

1.) 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. (Collector of Internal Revenue v. Estate of F. P. Buan, et
al., L-11438 and Santiago Sambrano, et al. v. PSC, et al., L-11439 &
L- 11542-46, July 31, 1958)

As to whether or not the LTFRB acted

JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

with Grave Abuse of Discretion Amounting

to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction

2.) 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, there is nothing
irregular in LTFRB’s imposition of the penalty of six months
suspension of the operations of petitioner’s 25 CPCs. In other words,
LTFRB did not commit grave abuse of discretion in imposing the
questioned penalty.

3.) The suspension of petitioner’s 25 CPCs is not only because

of the findings of LTFRB that the ill-fated bus was not roadworthy.
Rather, and more importantly, the suspension of the said CPCs was
also brought about by petitioner’s wanton disregard and obstinate
defiance of the regulations issued by LTFRB, 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 LTFRB and which
is punishable, under the law, by suspension or revocation of any of its
CPCs.

The power of LTFRB to suspend the CPCs issued to public

utility vehicles depends on its assessment of the gravity of the
violation, the potential and actual harm to the public, and the policy
impact of its own actions. Deference to LTFRB's exercise of sound
administrative discretion in applying its special knowledge,
experience and expertise to resolve petitioner’s case should be given.

4.) The Court's ruling in the case of Luque v. Villegas is

apropos:

Contending that they possess valid and subsisting

certificates of public convenience, the petitioning public
services aver that they acquired a vested right to operate
their public utility vehicles to and from Manila as appearing
in their said respective certificates of public convenience.

Petitioner's argument pales on the face of the fact that the

very nature of a certificate of public convenience is at cross
purposes with the concept of vested rights. To this day, the
accepted view, at least insofar as the State is concerned, is
that "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
JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

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. Little reflection is necessary to show that the
certificate of public convenience is granted with so many
strings attached. New and additional burdens, alteration of
the certificate, and even revocation or annulment thereof is
reserved to the State.

5.) 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:

(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.

6.) Under Section 16(n) of the Public Service Act, it is clear that the
Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board has the power to
suspend or revoke the Certificate of Public Convenience issued by the
Board.

7.) Section 5(b) of E.O. 202 provides that:

Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation

Franchising and Regulatory Board. The Board shall have
the following powers and functions:

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;
JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

8.) Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board is

vested by law with jurisdiction to regulate the operation of public
utilities under Executive Order No. 202, it also gives the Land
Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board the authority to
suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience based on the
provision above.
9.) The Court’s ruling in the case of Rizal Light & Ice Co., Inc.
v. The Municipality of Morang, Rizal and The Public Service
Commission states that:

It should be observed that Section 16(n) of Commonwealth

Act No. 146, as amended, confers upon the Commission ample
power and discretion to order the cancellation and
revocation of any certificate of public convenience issued to an
operator who has violated, or has willfully and contumaciously
refused to comply with, any order, rule or regulation of the
Commission or any provision of law. What matters is that
there is evidence to support the action of the Commission. In
the instant case, as shown by the evidence, the contumacious
refusal of the petitioner since 1954 to comply with the
directives, rules and regulations of the Commission, its
violation of the conditions of its certificate and its incapability to
comply with its commitment as shown by its inadequate service,
were the circumstances that warranted the action of the
Commission in not merely imposing a fine but in revoking
altogether petitioner's certificate. To allow petitioner to
continue its operation would be to sacrifice public interest and
convenience in favor of private interest.

10.) Section 16(m) 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:

(m) To amend, modify or revoke at any time certificate

issued under the provisions of this Act, whenever the facts
and circumstances on the strength of which said certificate was
issued have been misrepresented or materially changed.

11.) The Commission is authorized to make reasonable rules

and regulations for the operation of public services and to enforce
JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

them. All certificates of public convenience issued are subject to the

condition that all public services shall observe and comply with all the
rules and regulations of the Commission relative to the service. To
further emphasize the control imposed on public services, before any
public service can "adopt, maintain, or apply practices or measures,
rules, or regulations to which the public shall be subject in its relation
with the public service," the Commission's approval must first be had.

THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI SHOULD BE DENIED

We humbly SUBMIT that we have already fully discussed

these points: That the LTFRB did not act with Grave Abuse of
Discretion Amounting to Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction and that the
LTFRB has the Power to Suspend the Fleet of a Public Utility that
Violates the Law, to the Damage of the Public.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent prays that the
Petition for Certiorari filed by JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. be DENIED
for lack of merit.
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Quezon City for Manila, June 18, 2020.

(Sgd.)

ATTY. LUCAS BERNARDO YAN

Counsel for Respondent

Land Transportation Office Building,

East Avenue, Quezon City

IBP OR No. 0202020, 1-20-20, MC

PTR No. 0202020, 1-20-20, MC

MCLE Compliance V 0345678, 01-20-20

Attorney’s Roll No. 91596

JANGGA TRANSPORT, INC. vs. LTFRB
Comment
x-------------------------------------------------x

Copy Furnished:
ATTY. ANNA BETTINA DELA CRUZ
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 14, Prime Building, Madrigal Business Park,
Alabang, Muntinlupa City