Taxicab Operators v. The Board of Transportation [GR L-59234, 30 September 1982]
Old taxis maybe phased out
En Banc, Melencio-Herrera (p): 12 concur, 2 concur in the result
On 10 October 1977, the Board of Transportation (BT) issued Memorandum Circular 77-42 which phases
out old and dilapidated taxis; refusing registration to taxi units within the National Capitol Region having
year models over 6 years old. Pursuant to the above BOT circular, the Director of the Bureau of Land
Transportation (BLT) issued Implementing Circular 52, dated 15 August 1980, instructing the Regional
Director, the MV Registrars and other personnel of BLT, all within the National Capital Region (NCR),
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 phaseout in registration year 1978; those of model 1972, in 1979; those of model 1973, in 1980; and those of
model 1974, in 1981. On 27 January 1981, Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI), including
its members Ace Transportation Corporation and Felicisimo Cabigao, filed a petition with the BT (Case
80-7553), seeking to nullify MC 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 16 February 1981, TOMMI, et. al. filed before the BT a "Manifestation and Urgent
Motion", praying for an early hearing of their petition. The case was heard on 20 February 1981. On 28
November 1981, TOMMI, et. al. filed before the same Board a "Manifestation and Urgent Motion to
Resolve or Decide Main Petition" praying that the case be resolved or decided not later than 10 December
1981 to enable them, in case of denial, to avail of whatever remedy they may have under the law for the
protection of their interests before their 1975 model cabs are phased-out on 1 January 1982. TOMMI, et.
al., through its President, allegedly made personal follow-ups ofthe case, but was later informed that the
records of the case could not be located. On 29 December 1981, TOMMI, et. al., instituted a petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order with
the Supreme Court.
Whether Memorandum Circular 77-42, phasing out 6-year old taxicabs and older, is a valid administrative
Presidential Decree 101 grants to the Board of Transportation the power 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 overriding consideration in the
issuance of Memorandum Circular 77-42 is the safety and comfort of the riding public from the dangers
posed by old and dilapidated taxis. 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. The
necessities imposed by public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental authority to regulate even
if thereby certain groups may plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. Dispensing with a public
hearing prior to the issuance of the Circulars is not violative of procedural due process. Previous notice
and hearing is not essential to the validity of general rules or regulations promulgated to govern future
conduct of a class or persons or enterprises, unless the law provides otherwise. It is impractical to subject
every taxicab to constant and recurring evaluation to determine its road-worthiness, not to speak of the
fact that it can open the door to the adoption of multiple standards, possible collusion, and even graft and

The product of experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated. Villegas [GR L-24153.corruption. Fernando (J): 7 concur. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. 1 took no part Facts: Ordinance 4964 was issued by the city of Manila prohibiting any operator of any barbershop to conduct the business of massaging customers or other persons in any adjacent room(s) of said barber shop. En Banc. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness. It has made clear the significance and scope of such a clause. and a fair return on investment obtained. En Banc. an entirely different measure than the ordinance regulating the business of barbershops and. challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance as it allegedly amounts to a deprivation of property of their means of livelihood without due process of law. The petition was denied by the lower court as its availability being dependent on there being as yet no case involving such issue having been filed. Lourdes Ramirez. Fernando (J): 10 concur. fairly. A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly. 1 reserving vote. the requirement of due process has been met. as component members of the Sta. and justly. Such is the progressive view of Philippine jurisprudence and it has continued to be. 14 February 1983] Ordinance prohibits any operator of barber shop to conduct the business of massaging customers in any adjacent room to forestall possible immorality. their cost recovered. (2) in order to forestall possible immorality which might grow out of the construction of separate rooms for massage of customers. Bautista v. 2 took no part Facts: Letter of Instruction 869 was issued on 31 May 1979 to respond to the protracted oil crisis dating back to 1974. Edmundo Unson. Tomas Velasco. which delegates in statutory form the police power to a municipality. and Lourdes Lomibao. Hence. banning the use of private motor vehicles with H and EH plates on weekends and holidays from 12 . Issue: Whether Ordinance 4964 is a valid police power measure. They are also generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public specially considering that they are in continuous operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours per shift. 31 January 1984] LOI restricting the use of heavy vehicles during stated days and hours as a fuel-saving measure is justified under the police power. Juinio [GR L-50908. the appeal." The Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on the general welfare clause. Apolonia Ramirez. Velasco v. Held: The objectives behind its enactment are: "(1) To be able to impose payment of the license fee for engaging in the business of massage clinic under Ordinance 3659 as amended by Ordinance 4767. filed petition for declaratory relief with the lower court. or in any room(s) within the same building where the barber shop is located as long as the operator of the barber shop and the rooms where massaging is conducted is the same person. Sy Pin. The clause has been given wide application by municipal authorities and has in its relation to the particular circumstances of the case been liberally construed by the courts. Cruz Barbershop Association.

Memorandum Circular 39 does not impose the penalty of confiscation but merely that of impounding. and for the third offense that of cancellation of certificate of registration and for the rest of the year or for ninety days whichever is longer. On the other hand. 21. (see also DECS v. 31 July 1987] The NMAT as a measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education is a valid police power measure. Edu. allow neon and electrically devised advertising signs only from five o'clock p. 89572. Luz Ciriaco. Labao sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-1988.. No. Herein. the determination of the mode and manner through which the objective of minimizing the consumption of oil products and measures conducive to energy conservation (require and establish taxi stands equipped with efficient telephone and communication systems. they either did not take or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education and administered by the Center for Educational Measurement (CEM). When a questioned statute deals with a subject clearly within the scope of the police power. or 1 am of holiday to 5:00 am of the day after the holiday. Feliciano (J): 13 concur Facts: Teresita Tablarin. It must likewise be made clear that a penalty even if warranted can only be imposed in accordance with the procedure required by law. 180 SCRA 533) En Banc. Dec. then Minister of Public Works. are constitutional and/or valid. Juinio. but exempting service. The question before the Court is limited to whether or not LOI 869 as implemented by MC 39 is violative of certain constitutional rights. consular corps. Gutierrez (J) [GR 78164. Pursuant thereto. while the imposition of a fine or the suspension of registration under the conditions therein set forth is valid under the Land Transportation and Traffic Code. the presumption of constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute. strict observance of traffic rules. the impounding of a vehicle finds no statutory justification. On 5 March 1987. as to LOI 869.am Saturday to 5:00 am Monday. banning certain vehicles from using the motorways in specified time.m. Mary Concepcion Bautista and Enrique D. rationing of gasoline to avoid panic buying and give the private car owner the option and responsibility of deciding on the use of his allocation. as to MC 39. Memorandum Circular 39. and Evangelina S. Issue: Whether LOI 869 and Memorandum Circular 39. effective solution of traffic problems and decongestion of traffic through rerouting and quick repair of roads and efficient operation of double decker buses. Transportation and Communications and Romeo P. Alfredo L. Nimfa B. and tourist cars. confiscation of vehicle and cancellation of registration on owners of the above-specified vehicles" found violating such Letter of Instruction. Held: A regulatory measure enjoys a presumption of constitutionality or a presumption that such an act falls within constitutional limitations. To apply that portion of MC 39 would be ultra vires.R. 1989.m. to nine o'clock p. prohibit immediately the importation of heavy and luxury cars and seriously re-examine the car manufacturing program) are left to the discretion of the political branches. which imposed "the penalties of fine. Ma. fine. diplomatic. Bautista questioned the validity of LOI 869 and MC 39 through a prohibition proceeding with the Supreme Court. However. Ma. truck. San Diego. strict implementation and observance of cargo truck hours on main arteries. and which is asked to be declare void on the ground that the specific method of regulation prescribed is unreasonable and hence deprives the plaintiff of due process of law. . then Commissioner of Land Transportation Commission issued on 11 June 1979. Rovira. Tablarin v. G.

Issue: Whether NMAT requirement for admission to medical colleges contravenes the Constitutional guarantee for the accessibility of education to all. as amended." The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. accordingly filed a Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the Order of the RTC judge denying the petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives to govern (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education. 15 days after its publication. Phase 3 of Administrative Order 62 was amended by Administrative Order 76 dated 28 August 1989 by postponing to 1 January 1990 the effectivity of the sanctions and penalties for violations of the law. beginning with the school year 1986-1987] and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission. control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines. Bengzon [GR 88265. Held: No. The Statute created a Board of Medical Education and prescribed certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools. in behalf of applicants for admission into the Medical Colleges who have not taken up or successfully hurdled the NMAT. National Capital Judicial Region. health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. Section 7. et. Tablarin. Grino-Aquino (J): 12 concur. al. (b) the examination for registration of physicians. the national organization of medical doctors in the Philippines. Officers of the Philippine Medical Association. the Board of Medical Education and the Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2382.. et. reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Legislation and administrative regulations requiring those Del Rosario v.” En Banc. The State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps to make quality education "accessible to all who might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a professional school but rather merely to make such education accessible to all who qualify under "fair. The law took effect on 30 March 1989. Republic Act 2382. dated 23 August 1985 [which established a uniform admission test (NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of the Philippines. the trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. 2 concur in result Facts: On 15 March 1989. provided in Sections 6 and 12 of the Generics Act and Sections 4 and 7 of the Administrative Order. and whether such regulation is invalid and/or unconstitutional. on behalf of their professional brethren who are of kindred persuasion. filed a class suit requesting the Court to declare some provisions (specifically penal) of the Generics Act of 1988 and the implementing Administrative Order 62 issued pursuant thereto as . al. After hearing on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction. 21 December 1989] The Generics Act implements the constitutional mandate for the State “to protect and promote the right to health of the people” and “to make essential goods. to enjoin the Secretary of Education. the full text of Republic Act 6675 was published in two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. as amended by Republic Acts 4224 and 5946.Tablarin. as provided in Section 15 thereof. The power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine. and (c) the supervision. Culture and Sports. and MECS Order 52 (series of 1985).

null and void. generic equivalent would thereby be curtailed. Art.unconstitutional. The petition was captioned as an action for declaratory relief. but equally effective. If a doctor is allowed to prescribe a brand-name drug with "no substitution. Nevertheless. The law aims to benefit the impoverished (and often sickly) majority of the population in a still developing country like ours. in view of the public interest involved. hence. Art. Held: Yes. over which the Court does not exercise jurisdiction. the Court decided to treat it as a petition for prohibition instead. XIII. The prohibition against the use by doctors of "no substitution" and/or words of similar import in their prescription." the patient's option to buy a lower-priced. not the affluent and generally healthy minority. rather. It secures to the patient the right to choose between the brand name and its generic equivalent since his doctor is allowed to write both the generic and the brand name in his prescription form. it implements the constitutional mandate for the State "to protect and promote the right to health of the people" and "to make essential goods. is a valid regulation to prevent the circumvention of the law. 1987 Constitution). health and other social services available to all the people at affordable cost" (Section 15. . Issue: Whether the prohibition against the use by doctors of "no substitution" and/or words of similar import in their prescription in the Generics Act is a lawful regulation. II and Section 11. There is no constitutional infirmity in the Generics Act.