Topic Compulsory Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance

Insurance Code: Section 390

Applicable
New Civil Code: Art. 1756
Laws
Constitution: Art. 12, Sec. 19
Case No. G.R. No. 149717
Date: October 7, 2003
Case Name Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation vs. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board
Petitioner Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation (EASCO)
Respondent Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

ANTECEDENT FACTS

[I]n its desire to improve public service and its assistance to the victims of road accidents involving PUVs, LTFRB
(Board) conducted a thorough investigation on the sufficiency of existing insurance policies for PUVs. In the course of its
investigation, the Board discovered that insurance coverage of PUVs was only P50,000.00 for the entire vehicle
regardless of the number of passengers or persons killed or injured.

The Board, then, undertook x x x nationwide consultations among the transport operators and insurance companies
and held meetings with the officials of the Insurance Commission.

Thereafter, the Board issued Memorandum Circular No. 99-011 fixing the insurance coverage of PUVs on the basis
of the number of persons that may be killed or injured instead of the entire vehicle alone. The coverage is denominated
as Passenger Accident Insurance Coverage (PAIC), which fixes the coverage of P50,000.00 per passenger.

During the effectivity of Memorandum Circular No. 99-011, the Board received several complaints from various
transport organizations. The thrust of their complaints are: (1) the proliferation of fake insurance policies; (2) the
predatory pricing among competing insurance firms; (3) the proliferation of fixers in the premises of the LTFRB
endorsing certain insurance companies; and (4) the moonlighting by personnel of the LTFRB who induced operators to
secure their policies from favored companies.

To address these complaints, the Board held a series of meetings with the officers of various transport groups
composed of operators of bus, jeepney and taxi as well as representatives of several insurance companies and officials of
the Insurance Commission.

In a meeting, petitioner EASCO proposed the creation of [a] two-group system and of [a] blacklisting scheme.

A proposal was then referred by the Board to the Insurance Commission for confirmation. The Insurance Commission
confirmed the same.

Thus, LTFRB issued the herein assailed Memorandum Circular No. 2001-001.

xxx

After a year of implementation, the Board now has received numerous complaints coming from various transport groups
and from its regional offices. These complaints [range] from non-payment or late payment of claims, fake certificates of cover,
predatory pricing, non-payment or under payment of taxes, graft and corruption, and the non implementation of the
computerized data bank of all public utility vehicles.

xxx

In order to make sure that future claims of PUV operators and passenger accident victims are paid within the required
time, and in order to minimize, if not eliminate, fake certificates of cover and graft and corruption, as well as to ensure the
payment of the proper taxes much needed by the government, as well as to create a computerized data bank without any cost to
the government which is necessary for transport planning[,] the Board will only accept, as proof of compliance of this program,
insurance polic[i]es/certificates of cover duly approved by the Insurance Commission specifically for this project, and issued by
any of the two groups as authorized by the Board.

xxx

All insurance companies who are blacklisted in any government agency or instrumentality including court and other quasi-
judicial agencies are automatically disallowed to participate in this program. Accordingly, no policy or certificate of cover shall
be accepted from these companies as proof of compliance with this program. The Board shall issue from time to time the list of
the blacklisted or suspended companies.

xxx

For the dissemination and implementation of the aforequoted Memorandum, the LTFRB made a one month
nationwide information campaign on the nature of the two-group system and of the blacklisting scheme. And in a meeting
with the different insurance companies, including the representative of petitioner EASCO, the Insurance Commission
representative read before the participants the insurance firms blacklisted by the RTC which includes petitioner EASCO.
The purpose of this information is to afford the blacklisted firms an opportunity to clear their records and settle the claims
against them.
 (EASCO) filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the CA questioning the validity of those issuances.

The CA ruled that Memorandum Circular No. 2001-001 had not been issued ultra vires by the LTFRB and constituted
a valid exercise of police power. Hence this petition.

ISSUE

1. WON Memorandum Circular No. 2001-001 and the subsequent implementing Circulars violate the constitutional
proscription against monopoly as well as unfair competition and combination in restraint of trade.
2. WON the LTFRB acted without jurisdiction and usurped the exclusive jurisdiction of the Insurance Commission.

HELD

Issue Ratio
1. WON NO.
Memorandum
Circular No. 2001- Monopoly
001 and the
subsequent The constitutional provision on monopolies is found in Article XII as follows:
implementing
Circulars violate the Sec. 19. The State shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so
constitutional requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed.
proscription against
monopoly as well While embracing free enterprise as an economic creed, the Constitution does not totally prohibit the
as unfair operation of monopolies. However, it mandates the State to regulate them when public interest so
competition and requires.
combination in
restraint of trade. Intense competition has led insurance companies/agents offering insurance policies for public
utility vehicles to resort to ruinous tactics to sell their services. Notorious agents of these companies
have engaged in predatory pricing -- selling the compulsory insurance coverage at an unbelievable
discount of sixty to eighty percent (60 to 80%) off the market rate. The huge coverage and liability
under the no-fault clause of the passenger accident insurance are grossly disproportionate to the
small premiums actually being paid.

Moreover, different persons or operators were issued certificates of cover (COC) or policies bearing
the same number. Thus, claims under these policies were not paid, or payments were unreasonably
delayed, resulting in prejudice to the riding public.

The present case shows a clear public necessity to regulate the proliferation of such insurance
companies. Because of the PUV operators complaints, the LTFRB thus assessed the situation. It
found that in order to protect the interests of the riding public and to resolve problems involving the
passenger insurance coverage of PUVs, it had to issue Memorandum Circular No. 2001-001
authorizing the two-group system. Subsequently, it promulgated Memorandum Circular No. 2001-
010 accrediting PAMI and PAIC II as the two groups allowed to participate in the program.

Undoubtedly, Memorandum Circular No. 2001-010 authorized and regulated two separate
monopolies.

It should be stressed that PUVs, as common carriers, are engaged in a business affected with public
interest. Under Article 1756 of the Civil Code, in cases of death or injuries to passengers, common
carriers are presumed to be at fault and are required to compensate the victims, unless they
observed extraordinary diligence. To assure this compensation, PUVs are required to obtain
insurance policies.

Indeed, in authorizing and regulating the two insurance monopolies, the LTFRB acted within its
prerogatives in promoting public interest and protecting the riding public. After all, the consortia
are open to all insurance companies, including petitioner. There is no discrimination against any
legitimate insurer. On the whole, the public is given protection without unfair competition or undue
restraint of trade. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, the two consortia are not engaged in the
insurance business; they merely serve as service arms of their respective members.

At bottom, the subject Memorandum Circulars were issued for the stated purpose of promoting
public interest; and of protecting the riding public and PUV operators from being defrauded by
fake, undervalued or misrepresented insurance policies.

Since petitioner has failed to show any cogent reason to strike down the assailed Circulars, their
implementation cannot be restrained. They may indeed adversely affect its business, but the
protection of the general welfare is of paramount importance. Petitioners individual business
interests must be subordinated to the benefit of the greater number. Salus populi est suprema lex.
 Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.

2. WON the NO.

LTFRB acted
without jurisdiction Executive Order No. 202, which created the LTFRB, conferred the following powers on the Board:
and usurped the
exclusive SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
jurisdiction of the Board. The Board shall have the following powers and functions:
Insurance xxx
Commission. b. To issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience or
permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation services provided by
motorized vehicles, and to prescribe the appropriate terms and conditions therefore;
xxx
k. To formulate, promulgate, administer, implement and enforce rules and regulations on
land transportation public utilities, standards of measurements and/or design, and rules and
regulations requiring operators of any public land transportation service to equip, install
and provide in their utilities and in their stations such devices, equipment facilities and
operating procedures and techniques as may promote safety, protection, comfort and
convenience to persons and property in their charges as well as the safety of persons and
property within their areas of operations;
l. To coordinate and cooperate with other government agencies and entities concerned
with any aspect involving public land transportation services with the end in view of
effecting continuing improvement of such services; and
m. To perform such other functions and duties as may be provided by law, or as may
be necessary, or proper or incidental to the purposes and objectives of this Executive
Order. (Italics supplied)

Corollary to this power must necessarily be construed the authority of the LTFRB to require
insurance companies to group themselves for the purpose of providing passenger accident insurance
coverage. Paragraph m directly authorizes it to perform such other functions as may be necessary or
incidental to the purposes and objectives of EO 202.

By providing passenger accident insurance policies to operators of PUVs, insurance companies and
their businesses directly affect public land transportation. By limiting its regulation of such
companies to the segment of their business that directly affects public land transportation, the
LTFRB has acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Circulars.

Administrative bodies like the LTFRB have expertise in specific matters within the purview of their
respective jurisdictions. Thus, the law concedes to them the power to promulgate rules and
regulations to implement the policies of a given statute -- provided such rules and regulations
conform to the terms and standards prescribed by that statute and purport to carry its general
policies into effect.

It should also be pointed out that before issuing the Circulars, the LTFRB made proper
representation and coordination with the Insurance Commission, which had no objection to the two-
consortia scheme.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.