TAXICAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA v. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, GR No.

L-59234,
1982-09-30

Facts: Petitioner Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI) is a 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. Petitioners Ace Transportation Corporation and
Felicisimo Cabigao are two of the members of TOMMI, each being an operator and grantee of such certificate of
public convenience.

On October 10, 1977, respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42

SUBJECT: Phasing out and Replacement of Old and Dilapidated Taxis

WHEREAS, in order that the commuting public may be assured of comfort, convenience, and safety, a program of
phasing out of old and dilapidated taxis should be adopted

WHEREAS, after studies and inquiries made by the Board of Transportation, the latter believes that in six years of
operation, a taxi operator has not only covered the cost of his taxis, but has made reasonable profit for his
investments;

Board hereby declares that no car beyond six years shall be operated as taxi, and in implementation of the same
hereby promulgates the following rules and regulations:

1. As of December 31, 1977, all taxis of Model 1971 and earlier are ordered withdrawn from public service
and thereafter may no longer be registered and operated as taxis. In the registration of cars for 1978, only
taxis of Model 1972 and later shall be accepted for... registration and allowed for operation;
2. As of December 31, 1978, all taxis of Model 1972 are ordered withdrawn from public service and
thereafter may no longer be registered and operated as taxis. In the registration of cars for 1979, only taxis
of Model 1973 and later shall be accepted for registration and... allowed for operation; and every year
thereafter, there shall be a six-year lifetime of taxi

All taxis of earlier models than those provided above are hereby ordered withdrawn from public service as of the last
day of registration of each particular year and their respective plates shall be surrendered directly to the Board of
Transportation for subsequent turnover... to the Land Transportation Commission.

Pursuant to the above BOT circular, respondent Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) issued
Implementing Circular No. 52, dated August 15, 1980, instructing the Regional Director, the MV Registrars and
other personnel of BLT, all within the National Capitol

Region, to implement said Circular, and formulating a schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be allowed and accepted
for registration as public conveyances.

In accordance therewith, cabs of model 1971 were phased-out in registration year 1978; those of model 1972, in
1979; those of model 1973, in 1980; and those of model 1974, in 1981.

On January 27, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT, docketed as Case No. 80-7553, seeking to nullify
MC No. 77-42 or to stop its implementation; to allow the registration and operation in 1981 and subsequent years of
taxicabs of model 1974, as well as those of... earlier models which were phased-out, provided that, at the time of
registration, they are roadworthy and fit for operation.

On February 16, 1981, petitioners filed before the BOT a "Manifestation and Urgent Motion", praying for an early
hearing of their petition.

Said proofs were submitted on March 27, 1981 attached to petitioners' pleading entitled, "Manifestation,
Presentation of Additional Evidence and Submission of the Case for Resolution.

Petitioners, through its President, allegedly made personal follow-ups of the case, but was later informed that the
records of the case could not be located.

On December 29, 1981, the present Petition was instituted wherein the following queries were posed for
consideration by this Court:

Issues:"A. Did BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned memorandum circulars in accord with the manner required
by Presidential Decree No. 101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners' constitutional right to procedural due process?

B. Granting, arguendo, that respondents did comply with the procedural requirements imposed by Presidential
Decree No. 101, would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed memorandum circulars violate the
petitioners' constitutional rights to:
(1) Equal protection of the law;
(2) Substantive due process; and
(3) Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and standard?
Ruling: Procedural and Substantive Due Process:
Presidential Decree No. 101 grants to the Board of Transportation the power

4. To fix just and reasonable standards, classification, regulations, practices, measurements, or service to be
furnished, imposed, observed, and followed by operators of public utility motor vehicles.

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.petitioners contend that they were not called upon to submit their position papers, nor were
they ever summoned to attend any conference prior to the issuance of the questioned BOT Circular.It is not
mandatory that it should first call a conference or... require the submission of position papers or other documents
from operators or persons who may be affected, this being only one of the options open to the Board, which is given
wide discretionary authority.

Dispensing with a public hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars is neither violative of procedural due process.

Petitioners further take the position that fixing the ceiling at six (6) years is arbitrary and oppressive because the
roadworthiness of taxicabs depends upon their kind of maintenance and the use to which they are subjected, and,
therefore, their actual physical condition... should be taken into consideration at the time of registration.

As public respondents contend, however, it is impractical to subject every taxicab to constant and recurring
evaluation, not to speak of the fact that it can open the door to the adoption of multiple standards,... possible
collusion, and even graft and corruption. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all vehicles affected
uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard.

With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness, the requirement of due process has been met.
On Equal Protection of the Law:
Petitioners allege that the Circular in question violates their right to equal protection of the law because the same
is being enforced in Metro Manila only and is directed solely towards the taxi industry.
To repeat the pertinent portion:
Its implementation outside 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.The State, in the exercise of its police power,
can prescribe regulations... to promote the health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the
people. It can prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of society.

It may also regulate property rights.

it need only be recalled that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same treatment be accorded all and
sundry. It applies to things or persons identically... or similarly situated.

What is required under the equal protection clause is 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 and the liabilities
imposed.

The challenged Circulars satisfy the foregoing criteria.

WHEREFORE, the Writs prayed for are denied and this Petition is hereby dismissed. No costs.

SO ORDERED.