TRANSPORTATION LAW 23.

Water Resources Board (NWRB) for the

issuance of a
1. Definition of Public Utility 24. Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to
operate
Public utilities are services provided by the 25. and maintain waterworks system in sitios San
government or state, such as the supply of Vicente,
26. Fatima, and Sambag in Baragay Bulacao, Cebu
electricity and gas, or the train network. Water
City.
supplies and other public utilities were badly
27.
affected. 28. At the initial hearing, respondent submitted
proof of
 Metropolitan Cebu Water District vs Adala 29. compliance with jurisdiction requirements of
notice and
2. Necessity for certificate of public convenience 30. publication. Petitioner which a GOCC pursuant
(MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 10-18-9) to PD
31. 198, opposed the application. It appeared
2.11 - Certificate of Public Convenience and through its
Necessity (CPCN) – is an authority from the 32. lawyers.
Commission granted to an applicant legally 33.
34. Petitioner filed a formal opposition by mail.
qualified in accordance with the constitution and
NWRB had
Public Service Act, as amended, for the
35. not yet received a copy. The counsel who
operation and/or provision of public services received a
within the Philippines where the Commission 36. copy volunteered to give a copy to the hearing
finds justification that the operation or provision officer.
of the public service will promote the public 37.
interest in a proper and suitable manner. 38. In its Opposition, Petitioner prayed for the
denial of
  A Certificate of Public Convenience and 39. respondent’s application because:
Necessity (CPCN) or authorization predicted on 40. 1) petitioner’s Board of Directors did not
a valid congressional franchise is required 41. consent to the issuance of the franchise;
before an entity is allowed to install, operate and 42. 2) proposed waterworks would interfere with
43. petitioner’s water supply; and
maintain public telecommunications facilities and
44. 3) the water needs of the residents were
services in the country. 45. already well served by petitioner.
46.
3. Constitution 47. The NWRB conducted a hearing and an
4. G.R. No. 168914 ocular
5. Ponente: CARPIO- 48. inspection. IT dismissed petitioner’s
6. MORALES, J Opposition.
7. 49. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was
8. Tickler: Issuance of a Certificate of Public likewise
9. Convenience (CPC), Public Utility 50. denied. It appealed to the RTC of Cebu City
10. which
11. “[Doctrine of the Case]" 51. denied the same and upheld the decision of
12. Noscitur a Sociis the
13. A "public utility" is a business or service 52. NWRB. The RTC also denied petitioner’s
engaged in Motion for
14. regularly supplying the public with some 53. Reconsideration.
commodity or 54.
15. service of public consequence such as 55.
electricity, 56.
16. gas, water, transportation, telephone or 57. Issues
telegraph 58.
17. service. 59. 1. WON the petition maybe dismissed outright
18. for
19. 60. failure to comply with the procedural grounds
20. Facts 61.
21. 62. 2. WON the application for CPC should be
22. Respondent filed an application with the denied
National 63. on the ground of lack of consent of the Board of
64. Directors
65. 106. domestic, industrial or commercial water
66. service within
67. Ruling 107. the district or any portion thereof unless
68. and except to
69. 1. YES, Engr Paredes was not specifically 108. the extent that the board of directors
70. authorized to sign the verification and of said district
certification 109. consents thereto by resolution duly
71. against forum shopping in petitioner’s behalf. adopted, such
72. 110. resolution, however, shall be subject to
73. Respondent claims that petitioner’s General review by the
Manager, 111. Administration.
74. Engr. Paredes, who filed the petition and
WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANT
signed the
75. verification and certification of non-forum OF CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE?
shopping,
76. was not specifically authorized for that 1. Applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines. If the
purpose. applicant is a Corporation, 60% of its capital must be
77. Respondent cites Premium Marble Resources
v C owned by Filipinos
78. 2. Applicant must prove public necessity
79. Engr Paredes was authorized by board
resolution to 3. Applicant must prove the operation of proposed public
80. file cases on petitioner’s behalf. The Board of
service will promote public interest in a proper and
Director’s
81. Resolution No. 015-2004 was attached to the suitable manner; and
petition.
82. It authorized Eng. Paredes to “file in behalf 4. Applicant must have sufficient financial capability to
of the undertake proposed services and meeting
83. Metropolitan Cebu Water District expropriation
and responsibilities incidental to its operation. (Kilusang
84. other cases”. Mayo Uno v. Garcia G.R. No. 108584, Dec. 22, 1994)
85.
86. Respondent argues that the board resolution
was
87. invalid for being roving authority and not a
specific
88. resolution.
89. INSTANCECS WHERE CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
90. BA Savings Bank v. Sia – Board resolution CONVENIENCE NOT NECESSARY:
was
91. couched in words similar to the subject 1. Warehouses
resolution. The 2. Animal-‐drawn vehicles or banca powered by oar or
92. Court upheld its validity. The Resolution was
sufficient by sail; tug boats and lighters
93. to vest such persons with the authority to 3. Airships except as to fixing rates
bind the
94. corporation and was specific enough as to 4. Radio companies, except as to fixing of rates
the acts
5. Ice plants
95. they were empowered to do.
96. 6. Public market
97. However, the Board Resolution does not
authorize 7. Public utilities operated by the national government or
98. Engr Paredes for the specific act of signing political subdivision except as to rates.
99. verifications and certifications against forum
100. shopping.
101. 3. Prior Operator Rule
102. 2. Yes. *Memorandum Circular No. 010-14
103.
104. PD 198, Sec. 47. Exclusive Franchise. Mandbusco Inc. v. Francisco - Prior Operator Rule
— No franchise
105. shall be granted to any other person DOCTRINES:
or agency for
 1 Definition of “Prior Operator Rule:” before
being serviced by buses that are usually left half-filled
permitting a new operator to operate in the
territory of another operator already established and jeepneys with only about 6 passengers each
with a certificate of public convenience, the
2.    Clemente, President of Mandbusco: testified that
PRIOR operator must first be given the
opportunity to EXTEND its service in order to there was then about 125 buses operating between
meet the public needs. Public operators must be Pasig and Quiapo and about 51 jeepneys servicing the
shielded from ruinous competition by giving the
prior operator the opportunity to IMPROVE his area to and from Shaw Boulevard to various parts of
equipment and services before allowing a new Pasig. He claims that this number of vehicles more than
operator to serve in the same territory.
meets the transportation need of the public. He adds that
2 An instance when the Prior Operator rule is NOT Mandbusco already made considerable investments and
APPLICABLE is when the new operator is only
the grant of the franchise to respondent would threaten
granted a MAIDEN franchise, or one which does
not really overlap with the entire route of the old his company’s financial stability.
operator but covers only a short portion of the
old operator’s route AS A CONVERGENCE
POINT. (So if a maiden franchise is granted to a Petitioners argue that because of the facts testified to by
new operator covering a portion of the old the 2 witnesses, the franchise applied for by respondent
operator’s route, the Prior Operator rule cannot
be invoked by the old operator to contest the should not be granted.
grant of the new franchise).
[Note: this second doctrine was not really in the
case but it is in the book of Perez p. 292, which, The Public Service Commission granted the franchise to
I think, more clearly emphasized the point of the respondent, upon a finding that the public will be
case].
benefited thereby because there was NO DIRECT
SERVICE from Barrio Pinagbuhatan to Shaw Boulevard
at that time, and residents from Barrio Pinagbuhatan had
to take 2 rides to reach the intersection and some of the
establishments near there like the provincial hospital. 
FACTS
Petitioner filed an MR, which was likewise denied. They
Respondent Pablo Francisco applied for a Certificate of
now file a Petition for Review with the SC on the ground
Public Convenience to operate 5 jeepneys along the
that the PSC violated the Prior Operator Rule when it
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig – Shaw Blvd route which can be
granted respondent his franchise.
divided into 2 parts:
A.    FROM: Barrio Pinagbuhatan, Pasig
ISSUE:
TO: the poblacion of Pasig
Whether the Commission erred when it granted the
B.    FROM: the poblacion
franchise to respondent
TO: the INTERSECTION of Highway 54 (now EDSA)
and Shaw Boulevard
RULING:
Petitioners (all bus operators) contested the application
Decision of the Commission granting the franchise to
of respondent and presented two witnesses:
respondent is affirmed.
1.    Dantayana, an official inspector of the Commission:
The court found that the Dantayana testimony only
in an effort to prove that the available vehicles are in
covered Part B of the route applied for by petitioner. As
already in excess of the number actually needed to meet
previously stated, Part B of the proposed route is a
the needs of passengers in that area, he testified that the
convergence point of passengers coming from other
route to and from Pasig to Shaw Boulevard is already
barrios in Pasig (not only Pinagbuhatan) and also those
coming from Manila.   His testimony failed to take into
consideration the passenger traffic coming directly from
Barrio Pinagbuhatan. The application of respondent was
made for the benefit of those living
Pinagbuhatan so the testimony of Dantayana, not having
included the passenger traffic directly from there, is
irrelevant to the issue at
On the Clemente testimony, the court found that the
buses and jeepneys referred to did not actually run the
full route applied for by respondent. The overlapping of
service exists only with regard to the second part of that
route (Part B above), and this is clearly unavoidable
since the stretch of road from the Pasig poblacion to the
intersection serves as a common access to Highway 54
where passengers embark for separate destinations.
Lacking any positive proof that the petitioners already
adequately served the transportation requirements of the
inhabitants of barrio Pinagbuhatan and other nearby
places, the Court refused to overturn the decision of the
PSC, especially since that decision is reasonably
supported by
The petitioners invoke the "old operator rule," which is to
the effect that a public utility operator should be shielded
from ruinous competition by affording him the opportunity
to improve his equipment and service before allowing a
new operator to serve in the same territory he covers.
This rule has no application in this case because the
certificate of public convenience granted
respondent is a maiden franchise covering a route that
connects barrio Pinagbuhatan and the intersection of
Highway 54 and Shaw Boulevard. Mandaluyong Bus
Co., Inc. operates about 3 buses on the line extending
from barrio Pinagbuhatan to Plaza Miranda in Quiapo,
which was essentially intended to cover the great
distance run between barrio Pinagbuhatan and Quiapo,
Manila (via all these roads: Pasig Boulevard, P.
Sanchez, V. Mapa, Valenzuela, Old Sta. Mesa, Sta.
Mesa Boulevard, Legarda, Tanduay, P. Casal, Ayala
Bridge, Concepcion, Arroceros, Quezon Bridge and
Quezon Boulevard…) On the other hand, the grant in
favor of the respondent covers only a brief shuttle run of
8 kilometers linking barrio Pinagbuhatan directly with the
in Barrio Pasig poblacion and the crossing of Highway 54 and
Shaw Boulevard.
Therefore, even though indeed overlapping with the
bar. route operated on by Petitioners, the route granted to
Respondent was only a mere portion of it, and cannot be
said to encroach on the right of Petitioners as prior
operators.
4. Transport network company and vehicle service
Transportation Network Company (TNC) - Refers to a
person or entity that provides pre-arranged
transportation services for compensation using an
internet-based technology application or digital platform
technology to connect passengers with drivers using
their personal vehicles.
SECTION 2. TRANSPORTATION NETWORL VEHICLE
SERVICE (TNVS) – Refers to a TNC- accredited private
vehicle owner, which is a common carrier, using the
internet-based technology application or digital platform
technology to connect passengers with drives using their
personal vehicles.
evidence. SECTION 3. SCOPE OF APPLICATION - This order
shall apply to persons or entities that provides pre-
arranged transportation services for compensation using
an internet-based technology application or digital
platform technology to connect passengers with drivers
using their personal vehicles, both the operator and the
driver and/ or owner shall be treated as a public
transport provider, hence, they are consider as engaged
in the operation of a public utility.
to the
LTFRV vs VALENZUELA
G.R. No. 242860, March 11, 2019
FACTS:
BDOYC registered its business with the SEC, and
subsequently, in December 2016, launched “Angkas,” an
online and on-demand motorcycle-hailing mobile
application that pairs drivers of motorcycles with
potential passengers without, however, obtaining the                Whether or not the RTC committed grave

mandatory certificate of TNC accreditation from the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of

LTFRB. In this regard, DBDOYC accredited Angkas jurisdiction in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction in

drivers and allowed them to offer their transport services favor of DBDOYC and against petitioners.

to the public despite the absence of CPCs. Cognizant of

RULING:
the foregoing, the LTFRB issued a press release on

January 27, 2017 informing the riding public that

               YES. Case law states that “grave abuse of
DBDOYC, which is considered as a TNC, cannot legally
discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal patently
operate. Despite such warning, however, DBDOYC
violates the Constitution, the law or existing
continued to operate and offer its services to the riding
jurisprudence.”According to its classic formulation:
public sans any effort to obtain a certificate of TNC

accreditation. By grave abuse of discretion is meant capricious and

whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack

               In response, DBDOYC, on July 4, 2018, filed a
of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It
Petition for Declaratory Relief with Application for
must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is
Temporary Restraining Order/Writ of Preliminary
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason
Injunction against petitioners before the RTC.
of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent
REPORT THIS AD
and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive

               RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or

(TRO) finding DBDOYC’s business not subject to any to act at all in contemplation of law.

regulation nor prohibited under existing law. It added that

That being said, the Court therefore concludes that no
since the use of DBDOYC’s internet-based mobile
clear and unmistakable right exists in DBDOYC’s favor;
application is not contrary to law, morals, good customs,
hence, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing
public order, or public policy, a clear and unmistakable
the assailed injunctive writ. In the final analysis, the
right has been established in favor of DBDOYC such that
business of holding one’s self out as a transportation
if petitioners prohibit the operation of Angkas, the same
service provider, whether done through online platforms
would cause irreparable injury to the company.
or not, appears to be one which is imbued with public

Hence, this Petition for Certiorari. interest and thus, deserves appropriate regulations. With

the safety of the public further in mind, and given that, at

ISSUE:
any rate, the above-said administrative issuances are

presumed to be valid until and unless they are set aside,

the nullification of the assailed injunctive writ on the

ground of grave abuse of discretion is in order