TAXICAB OPERATORS v BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION

G.R No. L-59234 September 30, 1982

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS:
In January 1981, the BOT issued Memorandum Circular No.77-42 providing for the phasing out and
replacement of old and dilapidated taxis to insure that only safe and comfortable units are used as public
conveyances. This order was set to be implemented immediately in Metro Manila, and will subsequently
be implemented outside Metro Manila only after the date has been determined by BOT.

In accordance with this, the Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation issued Implementing Circular
No.52, instructing BLT personnel in the National Capital Region to implement the said BOT Circular and
formulating a schedule for the phase-out of vehicles allowed and accepted for registration as public
conveyances.

In November 1981, the taxicab operators of Metro Manila filed a petition for "Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order" against the BOT seeking to
nullify the Memorandum Circular or stop its implementation. The taxicab operators alleged
that the Circular in question violates their right to equal protection under the law because it is only
enforced in Metro Manila and is only directed at the taxi industry. It should be observed that
implementation outside Metro Manila is also envisioned in Memorandum Circular No. 77-42.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a violation of the equal protection clause by the implementation of the said
circular.

RULING:
No, the no violation of equal protection by implementation of the said circular.

The State may, in the exercise of its police power, issue regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
good order, safety, and general welfare of the people. It has the power to prohibit anything that is harmful
to society's comfort, safety, and well-being. It could also govern property rights. The interest of the public
in general requires exercise of power rather the interest of those in the particular class. Thus, when the
activity or property pursued to be enforced has an impact on the general welfare, the right derived from it
has to give way to the interest of the greater number.

In the case at bar, it is common knowledge that taxicabs in this city, compared to those in other places,
are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use, resulting in a significant difference. the
Circulars meet the criteria required by the equal protection clause, which is uniform operation by legal
means so that all persons in identical or similar circumstances are accorded the same treatment in terms
of privilege conferred and liabilities imposed. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition filed by taxicab
operators.