Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 228 views

    Mirasol Vs DPWH

    Uploaded by

    Marve Cabigao
    1) Petitioners filed a petition seeking to nullify administrative issuances allowing the total ban of motorcycles on certain tollways. The trial court dismissed the petition but declared one issuance invalid. Petitioners appealed. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's preliminary injunction was not a final determination and thus not subject to res judicata. 3) The Court also ruled the administrative issuances void, as the Department of Public Works and Highways lacked the authority to declare tollways as limited access facilities or regulate transportation activities. That power belonged to the Department of Transportation and Communications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mirasol Vs DPWH

    Uploaded by

    Marve Cabigao
    228 views2 pages
    1) Petitioners filed a petition seeking to nullify administrative issuances allowing the total ban of motorcycles on certain tollways. The trial court dismissed the petition but declared one issuance invalid. Petitioners appealed. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's preliminary injunction was not a final determination and thus not subject to res judicata. 3) The Court also ruled the administrative issuances void, as the Department of Public Works and Highways lacked the authority to declare tollways as limited access facilities or regulate transportation activities. That power belonged to the Department of Transportation and Communications.

    Original Description:

    public corporation

    Original Title

    Mirasol vs Dpwh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioners filed a petition seeking to nullify administrative issuances allowing the total ban of motorcycles on certain tollways. The trial court dismissed the petition but declared one issuance invalid. Petitioners appealed. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's preliminary injunction was not a final determination and thus not subject to res judicata. 3) The Court also ruled the administrative issuances void, as the Department of Public Works and Highways lacked the authority to declare tollways as limited access facilities or regulate transportation activities. That power belonged to the Department of Transportation and Communications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    228 views2 pages

    Mirasol Vs DPWH

    Uploaded by

    Marve Cabigao
    1) Petitioners filed a petition seeking to nullify administrative issuances allowing the total ban of motorcycles on certain tollways. The trial court dismissed the petition but declared one issuance invalid. Petitioners appealed. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's preliminary injunction was not a final determination and thus not subject to res judicata. 3) The Court also ruled the administrative issuances void, as the Department of Public Works and Highways lacked the authority to declare tollways as limited access facilities or regulate transportation activities. That power belonged to the Department of Transportation and Communications.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    James Mirasol v.

    Department of Public Works and Highways and Toll Regulatory Board


    GR no. 158793
    Facts: On January 10, 2001, petitioners filed before the court a petition for declaratory judgment
    with application for temporary restraining order and injunction. It seeks the declaration of
    nullification of administrative issuances for being inconsistent with the provisions of Republic
    Act 2000 (Limited Access Highway Act) which was enacted 1957. Previously, pursuant to its
    mandate under RA 2000, DPWH issued on June 25, 1998 Dept. Order no. 215 declaring the
    Manila Cavite (Coastal Road) Toll Expressway as limited access facilities. Petitioners filed an
    Amended Petition on February 8, 2001 wherein petitioners sought the declaration of nullity of
    the aforesaid administrative issuances. The petitioners prayed for the issuance of a temporary
    restraining order to prevent the enforcement of the total ban on motorcycles along NLEX, SLEX,
    Manila-Cavite (Coastal Road) toll Expressway under DO 215. RTC, after due hearing, granted
    the petitioners application for preliminary injunction conditioned upon petitioners filing of cash
    bond in the amount of P100, 000 which petitioners complied. DPWH issued an order (DO 123)
    allowing motorcycles with engine displacement of 400 cubic centimeters inside limited access
    facilities (toll ways). Upon assumption of Hon. Presiding Judge, both the petitioners and
    respondents were required to file their Memoranda. The court issued an order dismissing the
    petition but declaring invalid DO 123. The petitioners moved for reconsideration but it was
    denied. RTC ruled that DO 74 is valid but DO 123 is invalid being violative of the equal
    protection clause of the Constitution
    Issue:
    1. Whether RTCs decision is barred by res judicata?
    2. Whether DO 74, DO 215 and the TRB regulation contravene RA 2000
    Ruling:
    First issue:
    The petitioners are mistaken because they rely on the RTCs Order granting their
    prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Since petitioners did not appeal from that order, the
    petitioners presumed that the order became a final judgment on the issues. The order granting the
    prayer is not an adjudication on the merits of the case that would trigger res judicata. A
    preliminary injunction does not serve as a final determination of the issues, it being a provisional
    remedy.
    Second issue: The petitioners claimed that DO 74, DO 215 and TRBs rules and regulation
    issued under them unduly expanded the power of the DPWH in sec. 4 of RA 2000 to regulate toll
    ways. They contend that DPWHs regulatory authority is limited to acts like redesigning
    curbings or central dividing sections. They claim that DPWH is only allowed to redesign the
    physical structure of toll ways and not to determine who or what can be qualifies as toll ways
    user. The court ruled that DO 74 and DO 215 are void because the DPWH has no authority to
    declare certain expressways as limited access facilities. Under the law, it is the DOTC which is
    authorized to administer and enforce all laws, rules and regulations in the field of transportation
    and to regulate related activities. Since the DPWH has no authority to regulate activities relative
    to transportation, the TRB cannot derive its power from the DPWH to issue regulations
    governing limited access facilities. The DPWH cannot delegate a power or function which it
    does not possess in the first place.

    You might also like