Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 67 views

    KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER v. GARCIA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Puno
    The Supreme Court ruled that a provision in an administrative order issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) was invalid. The provision established a presumption that a certificate of public convenience should be granted in favor of the applicant, rather than requiring the applicant to prove that the proposed transportation service is necessary. The Court found this was inconsistent with the Public Service Act, which requires an applicant to prove through a public hearing that the proposed service will promote public interest. Presuming necessity in favor of the applicant reverses standard judicial procedures and amends the Rules of Court without proper authority.

    Copyright:

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

    KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER v. GARCIA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Puno
    67 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that a provision in an administrative order issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) was invalid. The provision established a presumption that a certificate of public convenience should be granted in favor of the applicant, rather than requiring the applicant to prove that the proposed transportation service is necessary. The Court found this was inconsistent with the Public Service Act, which requires an applicant to prove through a public hearing that the proposed service will promote public interest. Presuming necessity in favor of the applicant reverses standard judicial procedures and amends the Rules of Court without proper authority.

    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 Supreme Court ruled that a provision in an administrative order issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) was invalid. The provision established a presumption that a certificate of public convenience should be granted in favor of the applicant, rather than requiring the applicant to prove that the proposed transportation service is necessary. The Court found this was inconsistent with the Public Service Act, which requires an applicant to prove through a public hearing that the proposed service will promote public interest. Presuming necessity in favor of the applicant reverses standard judicial procedures and amends the Rules of Court without proper authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    67 views4 pages

    KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER v. GARCIA

    Uploaded by

    Francis Puno
    The Supreme Court ruled that a provision in an administrative order issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) was invalid. The provision established a presumption that a certificate of public convenience should be granted in favor of the applicant, rather than requiring the applicant to prove that the proposed transportation service is necessary. The Court found this was inconsistent with the Public Service Act, which requires an applicant to prove through a public hearing that the proposed service will promote public interest. Presuming necessity in favor of the applicant reverses standard judicial procedures and amends the Rules of Court without proper authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER v.

    GARCIA
    239 SCRA 386

    FACTS:

    LTFRB issued memorandum Circular No. 92-009 promulgating the guidelines for the implementation of
    DOTC D.O. No. 92-587 which provides among others, that the issuance of Certificate of Public
    Convenience is determined by public need. The presumption of public need for a service shall be
    deemed in favor of the applicant, while the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed
    service shall be the oppositor’s (emphasis supplied).

    Petitioner KMU held that the presumption of public need in favor of an applicant for a proposed
    transport service without having to prove public necessity, is illegal for being violative of the Public
    Service Act and the Rules of Court.

    ISSUE:

    WON the assailed memorandum circular which establish presumption of public need in favor of the
    applicant for CPC and place on the oppositor the burden of proving that there is no need for proposed
    service, is in violation of the Public Service Act and the Rules of Court.

    HELD:

    YES.

    A certificate of public convenience (CPC) is an authorization granted by the LTFRB for the operation of
    land transportation services for public use as required by law. Pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Public
    Service Act, as amended, the following requirements must be met before a CPC may be granted, to wit:
    (i) the applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or
    joint-stock company constituted and organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least 60  per
    centum of its stock or paid-up capital must belong entirely to citizens of the Philippines; (ii) the applicant
    must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities
    incident to its operation; and (iii) the applicant must prove that the operation of the public service
    proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable
    manner. It is understood that there must be proper notice and hearing before the PSC can exercise its
    power to issue a CPC.

    While adopting  the foregoing requisites for the issuance of a CPC, LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-
    009, contravenes Public Service Act and the Rules of Court. Section 16(c)(iii) of the Public Service Act
    which requires that before a CPC will be issued, the applicant must prove by proper notice and hearing
    that the operation of the public service proposed will promote public interest in a proper and suitable
    manner. On the contrary, the assailed guideline states that the presumption of public need for a public
    service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. In case of conflict between a statute and an
    administrative order, the former must prevail.

    By its terms, public convenience or necessity generally means something fitting or suited to the public
    need. As one of the basic requirements for the grant of a CPC, public convenience and necessity exists
    when the proposed facility or service meets a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which
    the existing facilities do not adequately supply. The existence or non-existence of public convenience
    and necessity is therefore a question of fact that must be established by evidence, empirical data;
    statistics and such other means necessary, in a public hearing conducted for that purpose. The purpose
    of such procedure, among other things, is to protect, the interests of both the public and the existing
    transport operators. Therefore, an applicant must, at all times, be required to prove his capacity and
    capability to furnish the service which he has undertaken to render.  And all this will be possible only if a
    public hearing were conducted for that purpose.

    Otherwise stated, the establishment of public need in favor of an applicant reverses well-settled and
    institutionalized judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative procedures. It allows the party who initiates
    the proceedings to prove, by mere application, his affirmative allegations. Moreover, the offending
    provisions of the LTFRB memorandum circular in question would in effect amend the Rules of Court by
    adding another disputable presumption in the enumeration of 37 presumptions under Rule 131, Section
    5 of the Rules of Court. Such usurpation of this Court's authority cannot be countenanced as only this
    Court is mandated by law to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. 

    +
    The assailed provision is entirely incompatible and inconsistent with Section 16(c)(iii) of the Public
    Service Act which requires that before a CPC will be issued, the applicant must prove by proper notice
    and hearing that the operation of the public service proposed will promote public interest in a proper
    and suitable manner. On the contrary, the policy guideline states that the presumption of public need
    for a public service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. In case of conflict between a statute and
    an administrative order, the former must prevail.

    By its terms, public convenience or necessity generally means something fitting or suited to the public
    need.  As one of the basic requirements for the grant of a CPC, public convenience and necessity exists
    when the proposed facility or service meets a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which
    the existing facilities do not adequately supply. The existence or non-existence of public convenience
    and necessity is therefore a question of fact that must be established by evidence, real and/or
    testimonial; empirical data; statistics and such other means necessary, in a public hearing conducted for
    that purpose. The object and purpose of such procedure, among other things, is to look out for, and
    protect, the interests of both the public and the existing transport operators.

    Verily, the power of a regulatory body to issue a CPC is founded on the condition that after full-dress
    hearing and investigation, it shall find, as a fact, that the proposed operation is for the convenience of
    the public.17 Basic convenience is the primary consideration for which a CPC is issued, and that fact
    alone must be consistently borne in mind. Also, existing operators in subject routes must be given an
    opportunity to offer proof and oppose the application. Therefore, an applicant must, at all times, be
    required to prove his capacity and capability to furnish the service which he has undertaken to
    render. 18 And all this will be possible only if a public hearing were conducted for that purpose.

    You might also like