Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Respondent Lungsod Silangan Transport Services Corp., Inc. (Lungsod Corp.) was issued a certificate of public convenience in 1983 to operate a jeepney service on the Cogeo-Cubao route. Petitioner COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (Association), registered in 1985, aimed to represent its members regarding ownership of units and to address issues with Lungsod Corp.'s practices, such as its 'Bandera' System. Perturbed by this system and emboldened by their registration, the Association, led by Romeo Oliva, formed a human barricade on November 11, 1985, and took over the dispatching of passenger jeepneys on the disputed route, leading to a suit for damages. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Lungsod Corp., ordering the Association to pay P50,000.00 in actual damages and P10,000.00 in attorney's fees. The Association appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's findings but modified the award, reducing actual damages and attorney's fees, and instead awarding P10,000.00 in nominal damages to Lungsod Corp. for the invasion of its property rights. 3. The Petition: This petition for review on certiorari was filed by the Association, assigning as errors the CA's modification of the trial court's judgment, its holding that the petitioner usurped the property right of the private respondent, and its denial of the motion for reconsideration. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the petitioner usurped the property right of the respondent, thereby entitling the latter to nominal damages. The petitioner argues it was formed for the protection of drivers and to address respondent's practices, not to compete, and that its members were exercising their right to redress grievances.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner usurped the property right of the respondent, entitling the latter to nominal damages. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the judgment of the trial court regarding the award of nominal damages for the usurpation of property rights.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of the respondent appellate court dated May 27, 1991, is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of usurpation of property rights and entitlement to nominal damages: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the petitioner association forcibly took over the operation of the jeepney service on the Cogeo-Cubao route without authorization and in violation of the respondent corporation's right to operate under its certificate of public convenience. The Court reiterated that a certificate of public convenience is considered property in a broad sense, having material value and constituting a valuable asset, although it is affected with a public interest. While the petitioner argued that its organization was for the common protection of drivers and to address grievances, the Court emphasized that the manner of exercising constitutional rights should not undermine public peace and order or violate the legal rights of others. Citing Article 21 of the Civil Code, the Court found that the petitioner's actions, which paralyzed the respondent's usual activities and earnings for ten days, constituted a willful causation of loss or injury contrary to public policy. Furthermore, Article 2222 of the Civil Code allows for the award of nominal damages in every case where any property right has been invaded. Therefore, the respondent corporation was entitled to nominal damages for the invasion of its property right, represented by its certificate of public convenience. On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the judgment of the trial court regarding the award of nominal damages for the usurpation of property rights: The Court found no compelling reason to reverse the ruling of the respondent appellate court regarding the award of nominal damages. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings.
Main Doctrine
A certificate of public convenience, while considered property in a broad sense and having material value, is affected with a public interest and cannot be interfered with without due process of law. Its usurpation by an unauthorized entity constitutes an invasion of the holder's property right, entitling the holder to nominal damages.