Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 322 views

    Kilusang Mayo vs. Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Beverlyn Jamison
    The KMU Labor Center challenged memorandums from the DOTC and LTFRB that allowed provincial bus operators to increase or decrease fares without approval. The memorandums widened the allowable fare range from +/- 15% to +/- 20%/-25% of the reference rate. A bus operator association announced a 20% fare increase under this policy. The LTFRB dismissed KMU's opposition. The Supreme Court ruled the memorandums unconstitutional as they delegated the LTFRB's power to fix reasonable fares to the bus operators.

    Copyright:

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

    Kilusang Mayo vs. Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Beverlyn Jamison
    322 views1 page
    The KMU Labor Center challenged memorandums from the DOTC and LTFRB that allowed provincial bus operators to increase or decrease fares without approval. The memorandums widened the allowable fare range from +/- 15% to +/- 20%/-25% of the reference rate. A bus operator association announced a 20% fare increase under this policy. The LTFRB dismissed KMU's opposition. The Supreme Court ruled the memorandums unconstitutional as they delegated the LTFRB's power to fix reasonable fares to the bus operators.

    Original Description:

    Kilusang Mayo vs. Garcia

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The KMU Labor Center challenged memorandums from the DOTC and LTFRB that allowed provincial bus operators to increase or decrease fares without approval. The memorandums widened the allowable fare range from +/- 15% to +/- 20%/-25% of the reference rate. A bus operator association announced a 20% fare increase under this policy. The LTFRB dismissed KMU's opposition. The Supreme Court ruled the memorandums unconstitutional as they delegated the LTFRB's power to fix reasonable fares to the bus operators.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    322 views1 page

    Kilusang Mayo vs. Garcia

    Uploaded by

    Beverlyn Jamison
    The KMU Labor Center challenged memorandums from the DOTC and LTFRB that allowed provincial bus operators to increase or decrease fares without approval. The memorandums widened the allowable fare range from +/- 15% to +/- 20%/-25% of the reference rate. A bus operator association announced a 20% fare increase under this policy. The LTFRB dismissed KMU's opposition. The Supreme Court ruled the memorandums unconstitutional as they delegated the LTFRB's power to fix reasonable fares to the bus operators.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER vs.HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR.

    , the LAND TRANSPORTATION


    FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD, and the PROVINCIAL BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF
    THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 115381 December 23, 1994

    Nature:

    The instant petition for certiorari assails the constitutionality and validity of certain memoranda, circulars and/or
    orders of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Land Transportation Franchising
    and Regulatory Board LTFRB)2 which, among others, (a) authorize provincial bus and jeepney operators to increase
    or decrease the prescribed transportation fares without application therefor with the LTFRB and without hearing and
    approval thereof by said agency in violation of Sec. 16(c) of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, otherwise
    known as the Public Service Act, and in derogation of LTFRB's duty to fix and determine just and reasonable fares by
    delegating that function to bus operators, and (b) establish a presumption of public need in favor of applicants for
    certificates of public convenience (CPC) and place on the oppositor the burden of proving that there is no need for
    the proposed service, in patent violation not only of Sec. 16(c) of CA 146, as amended, but also of Sec. 20(a) of the
    same Act mandating that fares should be "just and reasonable."

    FACTS:
    Then Secretary of DOTC, Oscar M. Orbos, issued Memorandum Circular No. 90-395 to then LTFRB Chairman,
    Remedios A.S. Fernando allowing provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates within a range of 15% above
    and 15% below the LTFRB official rate for a period of one (1) year.

    This range was later increased by LTFRB thru a Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 providing, among others, that
    "The existing authorized fare range system of plus or minus 15 per cent for provincial buses and jeepneys shall be
    widened to 20% and -25% limit in 1994 with the authorized fare to be replaced by an indicative or reference rate as
    the basis for the expanded fare range."

    Sometime in March, 1994, private respondent PBOAP, availing itself of the deregulation policy of the DOTC allowing
    provincial bus operators to collect plus 20% and minus 25% of the prescribed fare without first having filed a petition
    for the purpose and without the benefit of a public hearing, announced a fare increase of twenty (20%) percent of
    the existing fares.

    On March 16, 1994, petitioner KMU filed a petition before the LTFRB opposing the upward adjustment of bus fares,
    which the LTFRB dismissed for lack of merit.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the authority given by respondent LTFRB to provincial bus operators to set a fare range of plus or
    minus fifteen (15%) percent, later increased to plus twenty (20%) and minus twenty-five (-25%) percent, over and
    above the existing authorized fare without having to file a petition for the purpose, is unconstitutional, invalid and
    illegal.

    HELD:
    Yes.

    xxx

    Under section 16(c) of the Public Service Act, the Legislature delegated to the defunct Public Service Commission the
    power of fixing the rates of public services. Respondent LTFRB, the existing regulatory body today, is likewise vested
    with the same under Executive Order No. 202 dated June 19, 1987. x x x However, nowhere under the aforesaid
    provisions of law are the regulatory bodies, the PSC and LTFRB alike, authorized to delegate that power to a common
    carrier, a transport operator, or other public service.

    You might also like