Bagong Repormang Samahan v. City of Mandaluyong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, Bagong Repormang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator sa Rotang Pasig Quiapo via Palengke San Joaquin Ikot, Inc., sought an injunction against the City of Mandaluyong, its Mayor, and other officials. The group alleged that their members, holders of certificates of public convenience to ply specific routes including Shaw Boulevard, were being prohibited from passing under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover. They further claimed their drivers were being harassed by traffic enforcers issuing ordinance violation receipts for various infractions, despite no explicit ordinance prohibiting passage under the flyover. The City of Mandaluyong, however, invoked its Traffic Management Code, Ordinance No. 358 Series of 2005, which authorized the Traffic and Parking Management Office to adjust turning points and terminals of public utility vehicles and prohibited loading/unloading in congested areas like the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA crossing. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court initially denied the petitioner's application for a temporary restraining order and subsequently denied the writ of preliminary injunction. On January 4, 2010, the Regional Trial Court issued a Decision denying the main Petition for Injunction, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to use the road under the flyover and upholding the City's Traffic Management Code as a valid exercise of its power to maintain local order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on May 26, 2015, holding that the City of Mandaluyong possessed delegated legislative power to enact traffic rules under the Local Government Code and that the prohibition was a valid measure to address traffic congestion, not an infringement on the certificates of public convenience. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. They argued that the appellate court erred in its findings of fact and that their members possessed an unmistakable right to pass under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover due to their certificates of public convenience. Petitioner contended that the respondents violated this right by preventing passage and issuing ordinance violation receipts without an express prohibition. Respondents countered that the City of Mandaluyong had the authority to regulate traffic under the Local Government Code and that the Traffic Management Code allowed for the adjustment of turning points and terminals, and prohibited loading/unloading in the specified area due to traffic congestion. They also noted that petitioner's members did not possess a legal terminal in the area, thus falling under the prohibition.
Issue(s)
Whether the member-drivers, through their certificates of public convenience, have a clear legal right to ply through the road under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover. Whether respondent City of Mandaluyong violated this right, if any.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The May 26, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100496 is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the member-drivers have a clear legal right to ply through the road under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover: The Court held that a certificate of public convenience is a mere license or privilege and does not vest property rights on the routes covered. It is subject to compliance with national laws and municipal ordinances. The Court cited Luque v. Villegas and Lagman v. City of Manila to emphasize that the authority to issue certificates of public convenience does not supersede a local government's power to regulate traffic. Furthermore, the certificates themselves contain a condition requiring compliance with all pertinent orders and resolutions of local government units. The Court also noted that petitioner's members were prohibited from using the road under the flyover since its construction in 2001, and their previous practice did not grant them an unfettered right. Therefore, petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right. On whether respondent City of Mandaluyong violated this right: The Court affirmed that local governments possess delegated legislative power to regulate traffic under Section 458 of the Local Government Code, anchored on the general welfare clause. Ordinance No. 358, Series of 2005 (Traffic Management Code), enacted by the City of Mandaluyong, authorized the Traffic and Parking Management Office to adjust turning points and terminals of public utility vehicles. Section 113 of the Ordinance clearly allows the adjustment of routes and the prescription of loading/unloading points. The Court found that the prohibition against loading and unloading under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover was a valid exercise of the city's police power to address traffic congestion and did not violate the certificates of public convenience. Appendix V of the Code explicitly lists loading and unloading zones, and the area under the flyover is not included. The Court also noted that petitioner's members admitted to loading and unloading passengers in unauthorized zones, thereby violating the Code themselves. Since no right was violated, the second requisite for a final injunction was also absent.
Main Doctrine
A certificate of public convenience does not vest property rights to its holder; it is a mere license or privilege subject to compliance with local traffic regulations enacted under the police power of local government units.