Henares vs. LTFRB & DOTC

HENARES VS. LTFRB & DOTC, G.R. NO.
158290, OCTOBER 23,

2006
FACTS:
Asserting their right to clean air pursuant to the RA8749 (Clean Air Act), their
Constitutional right (Healthful and Balance Ecology), and the principle of "inter-
generational responsibility", petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and
Regulatory Board (LTFRB) and the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) to require public utility vehicles (PUVs) to use
compressed natural gas (CNG) as alternative fuel.
Due to the continuing high demand for motor vehicles, the energy and transport
sectors are likely to remain the major sources of harmful emissions. petitioners
allege that the complex mixtures of dust, dirt, smoke, and liquid droplets emitted
into the air from various engine combustions have caused detrimental effects on
health, productivity, infrastructure and the overall quality of life.
To counter the said detrimental effects of emissions from PUVs, petitioners
propose the use of CNG. According to petitioners, CNG is a natural gas
comprised mostly of methane which although containing small amounts of
propane and butane, is colorless and odorless and considered the cleanest fossil
fuel. Compared to coal and petroleum, CNG produces much less pollutants. The
only drawback of CNG is that it produces more methane, one of the gases
blamed for global warming.
Petitioners insist that since it is the LTFRB and the DOTC that are the
government agencies clothed with power to regulate and control motor vehicles,
particularly PUVs, and with the same agencies’ awareness and knowledge that
the PUVs emit dangerous levels of air pollutants, then, the responsibility to see
that these are curbed falls under respondents’ functions and a writ of mandamus
should issue against them.
LTFRB and DOTC explains that the writ of mandamus is not the correct remedy
since the writ may be issued only to command a tribunal, corporation, board or
person to do an act that is required to be done, when he or it unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
LTFRB and DOTC contend that nothing in RA 8749 prohibits the use of gasoline
and diesel by owners of motor vehicles. RA8749 does not even mention the
existence of CNG as alternative fuel. Also, it is the DENR that is tasked to
implement RA 8749 and not the LTFRB nor the DOTC. It is likewise argued that it
is the Department of Energy (DOE) that is required to set the specifications for all
types of fuel and fuel-related products to improve fuel compositions for improved
efficiency and reduced emissions. DOTC is limited to implementing the emission
standards for motor vehicles, and LTFRB and DOTC cannot alter, change or
modify the emission standards.
ISSUE:
(1) WON the writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel PUVs to use
CNG as alternative fuel (NO)
(2) WON the petitioners have legal personality to bring forth this petition. (YES)
RULING:
(1) NO. The SC ruled in the negative such that the plain, speedy and adequate
remedy herein sought by petitioners, i.e., a writ of mandamus commanding to
require PUVs to use CNG, is unavailing. Mandamus is available only to compel
the doing of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, there is no law
that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor
vehicles to use CNG. Mandamus will not generally lie from one branch of
government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior
to the other.
Here, petitioners are unable to pinpoint the law that imposes an indubitable legal
duty on LTFRB and DOTC that will justify a grant of the writ of mandamus
compelling the use of CNG for public utility vehicles. It was proven that the
DOTC’s duty is to implement the emission standards and set the maximum limit
for the emission of motor vehicles set pursuant to and as provided in RA8749.
The LTFRB has been tasked "to grant preferential and exclusive Certificates of
Public Convenience (CPC) or franchises to operators of NGVs based on the
results of the DOTC surveys."
The Solicitor General, for his part, reiterates his position that the respondent
government agencies, the DOTC and the LTFRB, are not in a position to compel
the PUVs to use CNG as alternative fuel. The Solicitor General explains that the
function of the DOTC is limited to implementing the emission standards and the
said law only goes as far as setting the maximum limit for the emission of
vehicles, but it does not recognize CNG as alternative engine fuel.
(2) YES. As to the petitioners' standing, there is no dispute that petitioners have
standing to bring their case before the Court since what is being assailed here is
the right to clean air. The right to clean air is an issue of paramount importance
for it concerns the air they breathe. It is also impressed with public interest. The
consequences of the effects of a neglected environment due to emissions of
motor vehicles immeasurably affect the well-being of petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO, ORDERED.

Henares vs. LTFRB & DOTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henares vs. LTFRB & DOTC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henares vs. LTFRB & DOTC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HENARES VS. LTFRB & DOTC, G.R. NO.

158290, OCTOBER 23,

You might also like