Other Means of Regulation i.
Basis: Section 2 of PD 1012, which granted BOT the power to
GR No. L-59234 Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of Transportation
Melencio-Herrera, J.
Respondent issued a circular that phased-out taxis that were 6 years and older. Petitioners
protested, arguing that their due process was violated when they were not called for a
conference nor required to submit position papers prior to the issuance of the circular.
Furthermore, they argued that the 6-year ceiling was arbitrary.
DOCTRINE
It is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern future
conduct of a class or persons or enterprises unless the law provides otherwise.
As applied in this case: The BOT need not first summon taxicab operators to a conference
on public hearing before issuing circulars phasing-out more than 6-year old taxicabs.
FACTS
1. Respondent Board of Transportation (BOT), based on studies conducted, issued
Memorancum Circular 77-42 (MC 77-42) wherein it ordered a phase-out of taxis that
were 6 years and older from its date of registration, starting in 1977.
a. It was to be applied in Metro Manila first and then implemented in other cities.
b. Implementing Circular No. 52 was issued.
2. Petitioners Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc. (TOMMI) 1, Ace Transportation
Corporation (grantee of a CPC), and Felicismo Cabigao (operator of a CPC) filed a
petition before BOT, asking
a. To stop the implementation of MC 77-42;
b. To allow registration and operation of the taxis that were phased out.
3. The president of the petitioner followed-up the case, but the case records could not be
located.
4. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary
injunction and TRO, arguing that
a. Their procedural due process was violated;
b. Assuming there was procedural due process, MC 77-42 violated their rights
to
i. Equal protection of the law;
ii. Substantive due process;
iii. Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and
standard.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WON petitioners right to procedural due process was violated NO.
a. Petitioners: they were not called upon to submit position papers, nor were
they summoned to attend any conference prior to the issuance of MC 77-42.
1
domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators, who are grantees of Certificates of Public
Convenience to operate taxicabs within the City of Manila and to any other place in Luzon
accessible to vehicular traffic
2
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
conduct its investigation and studies and may also call conferences,
require the submission of position papers.
b. SC: It is clear from the provision that a wide discretion is given to BOT in
choosing how to gather the necessary information or data in formulating their
policy, plan, or program.
i. It is not mandatory to call for a conference or require the submission
of position papers.
ii. Operators of public conveyances are not the only primary sources
of the data and information needed by the BOT.
iii. Central Bank v. Cloribel and Banco Filipino: Previous notice and
hearing are required for the protection of life, liberty or vested
property. It is not essential to the validity of general rules or
regulations promulgated to govern future conduct of a class or
persons or enterprises unless the law provides otherwise.
2. WON petitioners right to substantive due process was violated NO.
a. Petitioners: The ceiling of 6 years is arbitrary and oppressive because the
actual physical condition of the car should be taken into consideration at the
time of the registration.
b. Respondents: It would be impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and
recurring evaluation.
c. SC: agreed with respondents. 6 years is a reasonable standard because by
then the taxis have depreciated, their cost has been recovered, and a fair
return on investment has been obtained.
i. To follow petitioners suggestion would open the door to possible
collusion, graft, and corruption.
ii. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all cars affected
uniformly, fairly, and justly.
iii. By 6 years, the taxis are dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and
comfortable service to the public since it is used for 24 hours.
3. WON petitioners right to equal protection of the law was violated NO.
a. Petitioner: MC 77-42 only applies to Metro Manila and against the taxi
industry.
b. SC: MC 77-42 provided its implementation outside Metro Manila 3. As a matter
of fact, it was being implemented in Cebu City while the case was pending
before SC.
i. BOTs reason for enforcing it in Metro Manila initially is that taxis are
subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use.
1. Traffic conditions are not the same in every city, so there
was a valid classification.
2. The State was merely exercising its police power.
ii. Equal protection requires 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.
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.
3
Its implementation outside Metro Manila shall be carried out only after the project has been
implemented in Metro Manila and only after the date has been determined by the Board.
1
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition denied.

OTHER NOTES

DIGESTER: Lulu Querido