Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT First Judicial Region Branch 6 Baguio City MARIO CAYETANO, SARIO

TILIDEN, HUBERTO TILIDEN, LEONARDO LABOY, JOHN LONGBIAN, JR., CIPRIANO BINMOKOD, WAILAN S. KITAN, CLARITA LUCOTAN, DAVID SIB ATEN, CHARITO !ORD, MARCOS PALLA, LOLITA BACKONG, CARLITO WAYAS, JOEL GRANDEL PUAPO an" MELECIO MOYAMOY, Petitioners -versusAL!REDO B. GO#ON an" TEODORA CAGUICLA, Respondents '(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((' Civil Case No. 64 4 -R For! "#N$#"%&

MEMORANDUM
)For the Respondents*

+,-. #// $%0 R0&P0C- -1 -.0 .1N1R#B/0 C1%R-.

1"0 N1+ the respondents2 by the undersigned counsel2 unto the .onorable Court2 3ost respectfully sub3it their "e3orandu3 in the above-entitled case in co3pliance to the 1rder of the .onorable Court

dated June 2 455 2 and for this purpose state! ,

PREFATORY STATEMENT
-his is a case for "anda3us to co3pel the respondents to register as public utility vehicles the units of the petitioners by virtue of the fifteen )67* Certificates of Public

Convenience approved by the for3er

$1-C-C#R Regional $irector upon

reco33endation of the /-FRB-C#R2 a day before his co3pulsory retire3ent fro3 govern3ent service2 despite the fact that! 1. There was a moratorium for the issuance of said Certificate of Public Convenience and that the former DOTC-CAR Regional Director as well as the petitioners are full aware of! ". That there was no e#emption issued b the $ecretar % Department of Transportation and Transportation and Communications in connection with the applications of the petitioners! 8. That there was li&ewise no endorsement b the $angguniang

Panlungsod1 of the Cit of 'aguio for the said new route! and (. There was an Opposition" of fort )(*+ Operators and Drivers, of public utilit vehicles who are operating fort )(*+ units of passenger -eepne pl ing the route 'ec&el-'aguio Cit which passes through Tiptop% the route applied for b the petitioners. As a result of the undue haste in hearing the applications of the petitioners% the oppositors were not even given the opportunit to substantiate their opposition. +orse2 no less than the &ecretary2 $epart3ent of -ransportation and Co33unication2 had ta9en notice of the illegal acts of the for3er Regional $irector and the responsible officials of the /-FRB-C#R resulting in latter:s suspension. -he $1-C &ecretary li9e;ise ordered that i33ediate revocation and<or cancellation of the fifteen )67* irregularly issued CPC:s of the petitioners be underta9en ;hich is a clear directive to the respondents not to i3ple3ent the sa3e.
6

-he only docu3ent that the petitioners could sho; in order to co3ply ;ith this re=uire3ent is a letter fro3 &P "e3ber R1C>? -.1"#& B#/,&1N@. Neither the Co33ittee on -ransportation of the &angguniang Panlungsod of Baguio City nor the &angguniang Panlungsod of Baguio City2 as a ;hole 2 had reco33ended or approved said ne; route subAect of the application of the petitioners as re=uired by la;.
4

+hile counsel for the respondents ad3itted during the hearing last June 2 455 that she has no copy of any opposition to the application of the petitioners at that ti3e2 the oppositors ca3e for;ard and furnished her a copy of their 1pposition to the petitioners: application on 1ctober 6B2 4557. -hey paid the corresponding fees for said 1pposition under 1fficial Receipt No. 5B5878B on 1ctober 6B2 4557 before the /-FRB. For reasons 9no;n only by the /-FRB2 ho;ever2 said 1pposition ;as not attached to the record of the fifteen )67* petitions despite the fact that the /etter-1pposition2 ;hich ;as under oath2 ;as duly received by the /-FRB and the fees re=uired ;ere duly paid.
8

#ttached hereto is a copy of the 1pposition as Ann$% &'() 1fficial receipt sho;ing pay3ent of the opposition Fee as Ann$% &*( and the #ffidavit of C,/"# $0/ R1&#R,12 Records 1fficer of the /-FRB-C#R as Ann$% &+( and 3ade integral part hereof.

$espite the foregoing undeniable facts ;hich undeniably prove the illegality in the issuance of their alleged Certificate of Public Convenience2 not to 3ention the clear directive of no less than the &ecretary2 $1-C2 not to register and instead revo9e the sa3e2 the petitioners ;ould ;ant to co3pel the respondents to register their vehicles as public utility vehicles. ,s it 3inisterial to i3ple3ent an obviously illegally issued2 if not void2 franchise2 ;ith no less than the &ecretary of the $1-C ;ho is an alter-ego of the President of the Philippines directing its revocationD -he ans;er is very obvious. No less than the .onorable Court opined so during the hearing last June 2 455 that! CO.RT/ -hat:s ho; , understand the petition2 binigyan na ng franchise2 e ba9it hindi p;edeng ga3itinD -hat:s ;hy they are filing a case of 3anda3us2 to co3pel @oEon and Caguicla. ATT0. '1T234/ ?es2 ?our .onor2 there are approved certificates of public convenience2 ,-. .h$/$ a00r12$" c$r.343ca.$/ 14 0-,53c

c1n2$n3$nc$ ar$ ac.-a556 n-55 an" 213" c1n/3"$r3n7 .ha. .h$ 1n$ 8h1 7ran.$" 3. ha/ n1 a-.h1r3.6 a. .ha. .39$.
COURT:

YES, THAT;S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT ALSO .

)T$3% 5une 6% "**6% page (+ ,n a nutshell2 the foregoing is the su33ary of the case at bar. ,,

&-#-0"0N- 1F F#C-& #N$ 1F -.0 C#&0

6. 1n Nove3ber 6 2 45582 the /and -ransportation Franchising and Regulatory Board )/-FRB* issued /-FRB "e3orandu3 Circular No. 4558-54B TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING NATIONWIDE ISSUANCE O!

!RANCHISES !OR PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLESF 4. 1n #pril 2 45572 the &ecretary of the $epart3ent of -ransportation and Co33unication )$1-C* issued a "e3orandu3 9an"a.3n7 91ra.1r3-9 1n .h$ 3//-anc$ 14 4ranch3/$/ ,6 .h$ LT!RB CAR as a result of the special

audit 3ade on the $1-C-C#R by the $1-C Central 1ffice. -he above special audit sho;s that there is over supply of public utility vehicles operating in the streets of Baguio City. ,n the said "e3orandu3 by the $1-C &ecretary addressed to the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector #--?. #/FR0$1 "1N$,@%,N@2 the latter ;as specifically directed to suspend all actions or strictly i3ple3ent 3oratoriu3 on franchising functions. -hus!

61ar$ DIRECTED TO SUSPEND ALL ACTIONS OR STRICTLY IMPLEMENT MORATORIUM ON !RANCHISING !UNCTIONS E<CEPT E<TENSION O! VALIDITY O! CPC +,-.,N -.0 #R0# 1F
G1n Franchising Functions2 R0&P1N&,B,/,-?.H Please see a copy of the #pril 2 4557 3e3orandu3 of the $1-C &ecretary to the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing2 Jr. as Ann$% &'( of the Respondents: Co33ent. 8. -he over supply of public utility vehicles plying the streets of Baguio City did not escape the observation of the City 1fficials because it ;as causing 3onstrous traffic Aa3s that is ;hy they i3ple3ented the Gnu3ber codingH for all 3otor vehicles to reduce the nu3ber of public utility vehicles in city streets at a given ti3e of the dayF 4. 1n June 662 45562 &ecretary /0#N$R1 R. "0N$1I# issued a "e3orandu3 to the then $1-C %ndersecretary for Road -ransport &ector R,C#R$1 #/F1N&12 JR ;hich is too clear and una3biguous. ,t provides!

&DOTC CAR R$731na5 D3r$c.1r A54r$"1 P. M1n"37-3n7 HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE MORATORIUM ON !RANCHISING !UNCTIONS eJcept the eJtension of validity of CPC
;ithin their area of responsibility. 0'0"P-,1N FR1" &#,$ "1R#-1R,%"2 ,F #N?2 &.#// B0 &0C%R0$ FR1" 1R @,C0N 1N/? B? -.0 %N$0R&,@N0$.

In .h3/ c1nn$c.31n, YOU ARE DIRECTED TO !ORWARD ANY RE=UEST !OR E<EMPTION RECEIVED !ROM DOTC CAR TO THIS O!!ICE !OR DECISION.H

-he said "e3orandu3 to %&0C #lfonso2 Jr. ;as duly furnished the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector2 #tty. #lfredo P. "ondiguing. Please see a copy of the June 662 4556 "e3orandu3 of the $1-C &ecretary to the $1-C %ndersecretary for Road -ransport and to $irector "ondiguing as Ann$% &*( of the Respondents: Co33ent.. 7. Considering the above clear and eJplicit "e3orandu3 of $1-C &ecretary "endoEa that he is the only one authoriEed to $0C,$0 any application for eJe3ption fro3 the "oratoriu3 and that $1-C %&0C #lfonso2 Jr. is not authoriEed to give such eJe3ption and 3ust for;ard to his office all re=uests for eJe3ption received fro3 $1-C-C#R for his $ecision2 no less than the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing ;rote &ecretary "endoEa on &epte3ber 4B2 4556 GR0K%0&-,N@ 0'0"P-,1N FR1" -.0 "1R#-1R,%" ,N -.0 ,&&%#NC0 1F N0+ C0R-,F,C#-0& 1F P%B/,C C1NC0N,0NC0H. .is letter states! G&ir! Ma6 8$ a7a3n r$/0$c.4-556 r$>-$/. $%$90.31n 4r19 .h$ 91ra.1r3-9 3n .h$ 3//-anc$ 14 n$8 C$r.343ca.$/ 14 P-,53c C1n2$n3$nc$ )Franchise* 3n 4a21r 14

a0053can./ 8h1 8an. .1 a0056 41r a n$8 CPC 1n .h$ n$8 r1-.$, BAGUIO PLA#A .1 TIP TOP AND VICE VERSA.H
Clearly2 the above letter specifically see9s eJe3ption fro3 no less than the $1-C &ecretary hi3self for the route subAect of this case because as pointed out earlier2 the $1-C &ecretary in an earlier "e3orandu3 had 3ade it clear that he is the only one allo;ed to issue such an eJe3ption. -his is 9no;n to then Regional $irector "ondiguing. Please see a copy of the letter of $irector "ondiguing as Ann$% &C( of the Respondents: Co33ent. 6. -hat on January 662 455 2 despite the absence of any @R#N- 1F 0'0"P-,1N FR1" -.0 "1R#-1R,%" F1R -.0 ,&&%#NC0 1F N0+ C0R-,F,C#-0& 1F P%B/,C C1NC0N,0NC0 F1R B#@%,1 C,-?

1R #N? P#R- 1F -.0 C1R$,//0R# #$",N,&-R#-,C0 R0@,1N B? -.0 &0CR0-#R? 1F -.0 $0P#R"-0N- 1F -R#NP1R-#-,1N #N$ C1""%N,C#-,1N /0#N$R1 "0N$1I#F $0&P,-0 -.0 #B&0NC0 1F # C#/,$ #N$ F#C1R#B/0 R0C1""0N$#-,1N FR1" -.0 &#N@@%N,#N@ P#N/%N@&1$ 1F B#@%,1 C,-? F1R -.0 &#,$ N0+ R1%-0F #N$ $0&P,-0 -.0 0#R/,0R 1PP1&,-,1N F,/0$ B? -.0 $R,C0R&-1P0R#-1R& P#&&,N@ -.R1%@. -.0 &#,$ R1%-02 #tty. @uiller3o >adatar42 #ttorney ,, of the $1-C-C#R and assigned as .earing 1fficer for /-FRB-C#R2 conducted hearings on the applications of the petitioners. ,n his &;orn 0Jplanation to the $1-C &ecretary ;hy he heard petitioners: Petition despite the absence of an 0'0"P-,1N fro3 the "oratoriu3 issued by the $1-C &ecretary2 he 3ade the follo;ing

ad3issions ;hich sho;s the highly =uestionable circu3stances surrounding the applications2 hearing and approval of the petitions. ,n his &;orn 0Jplanation2 #tty. >adatar 3ade the follo;ing controversial ad3issions! a. -hat during the hearing of the Board on January 662 455 2 1r ?-/. 4$8 "a6/ ,$41r$ .h$ COMPULSORY RETIREMENT 14 .h$n DOTC CAR R$731na5 D3r$c.1r AL!REDO MONDIGUING 2 .0

/0#RN0$ F1R -.0 F,R&- -,"0 the fifteen )67* ne; applications for the issuance of ne; CPC:s on the line! Baguio PlaEa--iptop2 #3buclao RouteF b. Considering that he is a;are of the eJistence of a 3oratoriu3 issued by no less than the $1-C &ecretary prohibiting the acceptance of applications for ne; CPC:s in the Cordillera #d3inistrative Region2 he initially R0F%&0$ -1 .0#R -.0 #PP/,C#-,1N& 1F -.0 P0-,,-1N0R&F c. -hat he called the then Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing about the 3atter but the latter infor3ed hi3 that the applicants Lpetitioners hereinM ;ere able to secure an eJe3ption fro3 the coverage of the

.e ;as subse=uently suspended by the &ecretary2 $1-C2 as a result of said act.

3oratoriu3 fro3 %&0C R,C#R$1 #/F1N&12 JR7.2 n1. 4r19 .h$ DOTC SECRETARY h39/$54 a/ $%053c3.56 /.a.$" 3n .h$ M$91ran"-9 14 .h$ DOTC S$cr$.ar6 "a.$" A0r35 @, *AAB an" J-n$ '6, *AA6) d. -hat it ;as the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector "ondiguing ;ho approved the 67 applications of the petitioners $0&P,-0 -.0 #B&0NC0 1F #N? 0'0"P-,1N FR1" -.0 $1-C

&0CR0-#R? ;hich is very clear fro3 the "e3orandu3 of the $1-C &ecretary dated 2 4557 and June 662 4556. e. $espite the lac9 of any 0'0"P-,1N fro3 the $1-C &ecretary fro3 the "oratoriu32 then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing #PPR1C0$ the applications of the petitioners # $#? 1R -+1 PR,1R -1 .,& "#N$#-1R? R0-,R0"0N-. Please see a copy of the &;orn 0Jplanation of #tty. @uiller3o >adatar as Ann$% &C( of the Respondents: Co33ent. . 1n February 642 455 2 respondent #/FR0$1 B. @1I1N issued a

"e3orandu3 to the .onorable $1-C &ecretary /0#N$R1 R. "0N$1I# RE=UESTING !OR THE LI!TING O! MORATORIUM 1N /-FRB F%NC-,1N& ISSUANCE ,NC1/C,N@ #/R0#$? 0',&-,N@ FR#NC.,&0& AND O! NEW !RANCHISES ON NEW AND

DEVELOPMENTAL ROUTES ;hich includes the routes covered by the applications of the petitioners if only to have valid proceedings regarding the sa3e before the /-FRB-C#R. %p to this ti3e2 ho;ever2 no such 0'0"P-,1N ;as issued by the $1-C &ecretary. -his sho;s that

respondent @oEon is not against the opening of ne; routes B%- "%&- B0 $1N0 /0@#//?N+,-. -.0 #PPR1C#/ 1R 0'0"P-,1N B? -.0 $1-C &ecretaryF Please see a copy of the "e3orandu3 of respondent #lfredo @oEon dated February 642 455 as Ann$% &B( of the Respondents: "e3orandu3.
7

+ho ;as subse=uently $,&",&&0$<-0R",N#-0$ as %ndersecretary of the $epart3ent of -ransportation and Co33unication after the issuance of the G0Je3ptionH.

. 1n February 462 455 2 respondent @oEon received a co33unication fro3 /-FRB Chair3an 2 @0N. -.1"P&1N C. /#N-,1N )Ret.* infor3ing hi3 of the re=uest of the petitioners for eJe3ption fro3 the 3oratoriu3 on the issuance of ne; Certificate of Public Convenience )CPC* in their favor ;hich sho;s that indeed2 there 3ust be an eJe3ption given for the said ne; route ;hich they failed to obtain before filing their applicationsF Please see a copy of the /etter of the /-FRB Chair3an to respondent @oEon as Ann$% &6( of the Respondents: Co33ent. B. 1n February 442 455 2 respondent @oEon issued his reply to /-FRB

Chair3an /antion infor3ing hi3 that the 3atter ;as already referred to the .onorable $1-C &ecretary considering the approval 3ade by then Regional $irector "ondiguing despite the absence of an 0'0"P-,1N fro3 the $1-C &ecretary hi3self ;ho is the only one ;ho could give said eJe3ption in accordance ;ith the &ecretary:s "e3orandu3 dated #pril 2 4557 and June 662 4556F Please see a copy of the /etter of respondent @oEon to the /-FRB Chair3an as Ann$% &@( of the Respondents: Co33ent. O. 1n February 4B2 455 2 the .onorable &ecretary of $1-C2 /0#N$R1

"0N$1I#2 issued his reply to the letter of respondent @oEon regarding the propriety of granting ne; certificates of public convenience for the ne; route Baguio City PlaEaN-iptop --- ;hich ;as done by retired Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing ;ithout any eJe3ption fro3 the $1-C &ecretary hi3self but fro3 an %ndersecretaryNand 3ade the follo;ing directives! a. Considering the clear and eJplicit language of his 67 June 4556 3e3orandu3 to then Regional director #lfredo "ondiguing2 approval of eJe3ption fro3 the "oratoriu3 &.#// B0 @,C0N 1N/? B? .,"F b. -he 1ctober 642 4556 3e3orandu3 of %N&0C Ricardo #lfonso2 Ar. authoriEing an eJe3ption fro3 the 3oratoriu3 C1%/$ N0C0R &%P0R&0$0 #N$<1R #"0N$ #N %N#"B,@%1%&

$,R0C-,C0 F1R # "1R#-1R,%" ,&&%0$ B? -.0 $1-C &0CR0-#R?F c. -he 3oratoriu3 is 3andated not only by the $1-C but also the /-FRB by virtue of /-FRB "e3orandu3 Circular No. 4558-54B dated Nove3ber 6 2 4558F d. APPROPRIATE ACTION SHALL BE TAKEN AGAINST DOTC CAR EMPLOYEES WHO MAY HAVE A HAND AT THE ISSUANCE O! THE 'B CPC;/ )in favor of the petitioners* WHICH WERE SIGNED BY THEN REGIONAL DIRECTOR MONDIGUING ON JANUARY 'D, *AA@ NOTWITHSTANDING THE MORATORIUMF e. REVOCATION ANDEOR CANCELLATION O! THE

!I!TEEN F'BG IRREGULARLY ISSUED CPC;/ !OR THE BAGUIO PLA#A TO TIPTOP ROUTE IS ADVISED.
Please see a copy of the February 4B2 455 /etter of the $1-C &ecretary to respondent @oEon as Ann$% &D( of the Respondents: Co33ent. 65. 1n "arch 6O2 455 2 no less than the /-FRB Chair3an2 @en. -.1"P&1N C. /#N-,1N )Ret* ;rote respondent @oEon infor3ing hi3 that 0C0N .0 #& /-FRB C.#,R"#N C#NN1- /,F- -.0 "1R#-1R,%"<&%&P0N&,1N unless the $1-C &ecretary authoriEes hi3 to do so. -he /-FRB Chair3an li9e;ise assured respondent @oEon that .0 +,// 0'-0N$ .,& .0/P -1 /,F- &#,$ &%&P0N&,1N +.,C. C/0#R/? &.1+& -.#- #- -.,& P1,N- ,N -,"02 -.0 "1R#-1R,%"<&%&P0N&,1N .#& N1- B00N /,F-0$ P%--,N@ &0R,1%& $1%B-& #& -1 -.0 C#/,$,-? 1F -.0 67 CPC:s issued by then $irector "ondiguing in favor of the petitioners herein. Please see a copy of the "arch 6O2 455 /etter of the /-FRB National Chair3an as Ann$% &H( of the Respondents: Co33ent.

10

$espite the foregoing ;hich clearly sho;s the various irregularities co33itted by the previous $1-C-C#R Regional $irector and the /-FRB-C#R and the 0'PR0&& $,R0C-,C0 FR1" N1 /0&& -.#N -.0 $1-C &0CR0-#R? "#N$#-,N@ -.0 ,""0$,#-0 R0C1C#-,1N #N$<1R C#NC0//#-,1N 1F -.0 67 CPC:s irregularly issued in favor of the petitioners2 the respondents are no; haled in court by the petitioners re=uiring the3 to perfor3 #N #C- +.,C. -.0 $1-C &0CR0-#R? +#& -0//,N@ -.0" N1- -1 $1. Could that be done by the respondents ;ithout being subAected ad3inistrative sanctions by the $1-C &ecretary for @ross insubordination2 grave 3isconduct2 or conduct preAudicial to the best interests of the govern3ent2 to say the leastD -he ans;er is very obvious. Based on the foregoing factual and legal bac9drop2 is it therefore 3inisterial for the respondents to register the petitioners: vehiclesD ,,,

ISSUES
A WERE THE !I!TEEN F'BG CERTI!ICATES O! PUBLIC CONVENIENCE APPROVED BY THE THEN DOTC CAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR, UPON RECOMMENDATION O! THE LT!RB CAR, DESPITE THE MORATORIUM AND ABSENCE O! AN E<EMPTION !ROM THE DOTC SECRETARY, VALID, VOID OR UNE!ORCEABLEI B DO THE PETITIONERS HAVE CLEAR AND LEGAL RIGHT TO BE ISSUED CERTI!ICATES O! PUBLIC CONVENIENCEI C WAS IT MINISTERIAL !OR THE RESPONDENTS TO REGISTER THE VEHICLES O! THE PETITIONERS AS &!OR HIRE; DESPITE THE ANOMALOUS AC=UISITION O! SAID CPC;/ AND THE E<PRESS DIRECTIVE O! THE DOTC SECRETARY TO REVOKE AND CANCEL SAID CPC;/ AS WELL AS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST DOTC CAR EMP LOYEES WHO MAY HAVE A HAND IN THE ILLEGAL ISSUANCE O! THE 'B CPC;/ DESPITE THE MORATORIUM.

11

,C

DISCUSSIONS
A WERE THE !I!TEEN F'BG CERTI!ICATES O! PUBLIC CONVENIENCE APPROVED BY THE THEN DOTC CAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR, UPON RECOMMENDATION O! THE LT!RB CAR, DESPITE THE MORATORIUM AND ABSENCE O! AN E<EMPTION !ROM THE DOTC SECRETARY, VALID OR VOID OR UNE!ORCEABLEI B DO THE PETITIONERS HAVE CLEAR AND LEGAL RIGHT TO BE ISSUED CERTI!ICATES O! PUBLIC CONVENIENCEI C WAS IT MINISTERIAL !OR THE RESPONDENTS TO REGISTER THE VEHICLES O! THE PETITIONERS AS &!OR HIRE; DESPITE THE ANOMALOUS AC=UISITION O! SAID CPC;/ AND THE E<PRESS DIRECTIVE O! THE DOTC SECRETARY TO REVOKE AND CANCEL SAID CPC;/ AS WELL AS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST DOTC CAR EMP LOYEES WHO MAY HAVE A HAND IN THE ILLEGAL ISSUANCE O! THE 'B CPC;/ DESPITE THE MORATORIUM. -he above grounds being interrelated2 are hereby discussed Aointly as follo;s! '. THE CERTI!ICATES O! PUBLIC CONVENIENCE SUBJECT O! THIS CASE WERE ILLEGALLY ISSUED, THEIR ISSUANCE BEING IN VIOLATION O! E<ISTING LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS, HENCE, MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE.

12

-here is no dispute that that on #pril 2 45572 the &ecretary of the $epart3ent of -ransportation and Co33unication )$1-C* issued a "e3orandu3 9an"a.3n7

91ra.1r3-9 1n .h$ 3//-anc$ 14 4ranch3/$/ ,6 .h$ LT!RB CAR. -he above special audit sho;s that there is over supply of public utility vehicles operating in the streets of Baguio City. ,n the said "e3orandu3 by the $1-C &ecretary addressed to the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector #--?. #/FR0$1 "1N$,@%,N@2 the latter ;as specifically directed to suspend all actions or strictly i3ple3ent 3oratoriu3 on franchising functions. -hus!

61ar$ DIRECTED TO SUSPEND ALL ACTIONS OR STRICTLY IMPLEMENT MORATORIUM ON !RANCHISING !UNCTIONS E<CEPT E<TENSION O! VALIDITY O! CPC +,-.,N -.0 #R0# 1F
G1n Franchising Functions2 R0&P1N&,B,/,-?.H -here is li9e;ise no dispute that on June 662 45562 &ecretary /0#N$R1 R. "0N$1I# issued a "e3orandu3 to the then $1-C %ndersecretary for Road -ransport &ector R,C#R$1 #/F1N&12 JR ;hich is too clear and una3biguous. ,t provides!

&DOTC CAR R$731na5 D3r$c.1r A54r$"1 P. M1n"37-3n7 HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE MORATORIUM ON !RANCHISING !UNCTIONS eJcept the eJtension of validity of CPC
;ithin their area of responsibility. 0'0"P-,1N FR1" &#,$ "1R#-1R,%"2 ,F #N?2 &.#// B0 &0C%R0$ FR1" 1R @,C0N 1N/? B? -.0 %N$0R&,@N0$.

In .h3/ c1nn$c.31n, YOU ARE DIRECTED TO !ORWARD ANY RE=UEST !OR E<EMPTION RECEIVED !ROM DOTC CAR TO THIS O!!ICE !OR DECISION.H
,n the case at bar2 the petitioners #$",--0$ that indeed2 no eJe3ption ;as issued by the $1-C &ecretary in their favor. -hus! C1%R-! -here are no factual disputes , thin9. , 3ean2 are there facts in disputeD

13

#--?. B,-0N@! ?es2 ?our .onor2 the =uestion as to ;hether there ;as an eJe3ption secured by the petitioners fro3 the &ecretary is a factual issue. C1%R-! ?ou ;ant the3 to produce the docu3entD #--?. B,-0N@! ?our .onor2 there is already an ans;er to that by the &ecretary hi3self. C1%R-!

Y-n n7a, .ha.;/ 8h6 can 61- 0r1"-c$ a "1c-9$n. 14 $%$90.31nD

#--?. /1C>0?! -he docu3ents are attached actually to the petition. C1%R-! But2 ;as there a specific eJe3ption granted by the &ecretaryD #--?. /1C>0?!

THERE IS NONE I! THAT IS WHAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE ASKING. P

C1%R-! ?ou are telling 3e that the &ecretary of -ransportation has issued an ad3inistrative orderD #--?. B,-0N@! ?es2 ?our .onor. C1%R-! +ithin ;hat periodD +hen ;as it issuedD #--?. B,-0N@! On A0r35 @, *AA@, Y1-r H1n1r, .h$ DOTC D$0ar.9$n. S$cr$.ar6 3//-$" a M$91ran"-9 a""r$//$" .1 R$731na5 D3r$c.1r A54r$"1 M1n"37-3n7 DIRECTING THE LATTER TO SUSPEND ALL ACTIONS OR STRICTLY IMPLEMENT MORATORIUM ON !RANCHISING !UCNTIONS O! THE LT!RB CAR. C1%R-! Un5$// an $%$90.31n 3/, 3. c19$/ 4r19 h39. #--?. B,-0N@!

14

?our .onor2 subse=uently2 he also issued a 3e3orandu3 address to the then %ndersecretary for Road -ransport &ector R,C#R$1 #/F1N&1 advising the latter that DOTC CAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR AL!REDO MONDIGUING HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE MORATORIUM) AND THAT E<EMPTION !ROM THE MORATORIUM SHOULD BE SECURED ONLY !ROM THE DOTC SECRETARY) AND THAT ANY APPLICATION !OR E<EMPTION SHOULD BE !ORWARDED BY UNDERSECRETARY AL!ONSO TO THE O!!ICE O! THE SECRETARY !OR DECISION. C1%R-! #nd you are saying2 in this particular situation2 there ;as no eJe3ption or eJe3ptions obtainedD #--?. B,-0N@! -here ;as no eJe3ption obtained fro3 the $1-C &ecretary2 ?our .onor. C1%R-! +hat are you telling that there ;as an eJe3ptionD #--?. /1C>0?! -here ;as2 this is in accordance ;ith the "e3orandu3 dated &epte3ber 6O2 4556. C1%R-! +ill you read its contents ;hy you are saying that that ;as the eJe3ption givenD #--?. /1C>0?! ,t is actually a 3e3orandu3. C1%R-! Co3ing fro3 %ndersecretary #lfonso2 not &ecretary "endoEaD #--?. /1C>0?! Fro3 Ricardo #lfonso and noted2 ?our .onor2 by the &ecretary hi3self. #--?. B,-0N@! ?our .onor2 THE SAID MEMORANDUM SPEAKS ABOUT THE CONDUCT O! SURVEY AND EVALUATION ON A CERTAIN AREA. C1%R-! +e co3e to that later2 but he is saying2 this is the eJe3ption. ,f that is the eJe3ption that you are telling us2 ;as that issued by the

15

&ecretary hi3self2 "endoEaD &o it ;ill be an eJe3ption obtained fro3 hi3D #--?. /1C>0?! &igned by the &ecretary hi3self2 ?our .onor. C1%R-!

Y$/, ,-. n1.$" 5an7. HE DID NOT GRANT IT.

)T$3% 5une 6% "**6% pages "*-",+ -he petitioners relied on the "e3orandu3 of the then %ndersecretary #lfonso that an eJe3ption ;as issued in their favor as a result of the fact that the sa3e ;as GNotedH by the &ecretary. -he said docu3ent2 ho;ever2 is not an eJe3ption issued in favor of the petitioners as clearly pointed out by the petitioners as ;ell as the .onorable Court during the June 2 455 hearing. -hus C1%R-! Because in his "e3o on #pril 2 45572 you are telling us2 there ;ould be a 3oratoriu3 and everything is suspended unless they give an eJe3ption. #--?. /1C>0?! -hat:s it2 ?our .onor. C1%R-! No;2 you are telling us that on &epte3ber 6O2 45562 they obtained an eJe3ption fro3 %ndersecretary #lfonso but noted by "endoEa. SO IT WAS NOT AN E<EMPTION GRANTED BY SECRETARY MENDO#A. #--?. B,-0N@! Further3ore2 ?our .onor2 in said "e3orandu32 THERE IS NO E<PLICIT PROVISION OR STATEMENT THAT RICARDO IS GRANTING AN E<EMPTION TO THE APPLICANTS, TO THE HEREIN PETITIONERS. C1%R-! S1 .ha.;/ 3.. THE DOCUMENT ITSEL! DOES NOT, SHALL WE SAY, GIVE E<EMPTION. #--?. /1C>0?! ,te3 No. 6 of the said 3e3orandu3 spea9s of the lifting of the 3oratoriu3 and the acceptance of franchise application of P%C:s. JJJ

16

C1%R-! -he trouble ,2 there is a need to lift it said2 pending his reco33endation. &1 -.0R0 +#& # R0C1""0N$#-,1N B? -.0 %N$0R&0CR0-#R? -1 -.0 &0CR0-#R?. $,$ &0CR0-#R? /0#N$R1 "0N$1I# #PPR1C0 -.0 0'0"P-,1ND -.#0'0"P-,1N +1%/$ B0 @R#N-0$D ,- +1%/$ &00" N1-0$ /#N@ #N@ N#>#&%/#-. #--?. /1C>0?! -hat:s it2 ?our .onor. Precisely2 noted 3eans2 it ;as sho;n to the &ecretary. #--?. B,-0N@! Further3ore2 ?our .onor2 ite3 No. B of that "e3orandu3 states that any endorse3ent fro3 this office involving the above-3entioned routes is subAect to the conduct of survey and evaluation by the Road -ransportation Planning $ivision of his $epart3ent. IT MERELY RE!ERS TO THE CONDUCT O! SURVEYS AND EVALUATION. C1%R-! -hat 3eans2 IT WILL BE RECOMMENDED AND THEREA!TER THEY WILL HAVE TO CONDUCT A SURVEY AND EVALUATION KUNG TALAGANG KAILANGAN. #--?. /1C>0?! -hat is no; the re=uire3ent. C1%R-!

BUT THIS IS NOT THE E<EMPTION ITSEL!.

JJJ , C#N &00 -.#- -.0R0 ,& N1 #C-%#/ 0'0"P-,1N @,C0N B0C#%&0 ,F ?1% R0#$ ?1%R 1+N #NN0' GR:2 /0--0R 1F #/FR0$1 @1I1NP-1 @0N0R#/ /#N-,1N. ,N 1-.0R +1R$&2 -.0? #R0 #+#R0 1F -.0 "01R#N$%" 1N -.0 "1R#-1R,%". -.0? #R0 #+#R0 1F -.0 &%&P0N&,1NF -.#-:& +.? -.0? #R0 0N$1R&,N@ -1 -.0 1FF,C0 1F -.0 &0CR0-#R? F1R #PPR1C#/. +#& &%C. #PPR1C#/ 0C0R @,C0ND JJJ SO YOU ARE NOW ADMITTING IMPLIEDLY THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH E<EMPTION GIVEN !ROM HIS OWN MEMORANDUM ON THE MORATOIUM AND THERE WAS NO APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE SECRETARY B%- ?1% $,&P%-0 &%C. P1+0R 1F .,& -1 B0@,N +,-.. ATTY. LOCKEY!

YES. )T$3% 5une 6% "**6% pages "(-"7+

17

Based fro3 the foregoing2 there is doubt ;hatsoever that the CPC:s issued in favor of the petitioners ;ere invalid 2 illegal and unenforceable because! -here ;as a C#/,$ "oratoriu3 for the processing and approval of ne; Certificates of Public Convenience not only in the City of Baguio but in the entire Cordillera #d3inistrative Region at the ti3e the CPC:s subAect of this case ;ere received by the /-FRB2 processed and approved by the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector #/FR0$1 "1N$,@%,N@ t;o )4* days before his 3andatory retire3ent on January 6B2 455 F # ne; CPC 3ay be validly issued only upon an 0'0"P-,1N @R#N-0$ B? -.0 $1-C &0CR0-#R? #/1N02 not by any other official of the $1-CF -hat any application for eJe3ption received by %&0C #lfonso2 Jr. shall be for;arded to the $1-C &ecretary ;ho has the sole po;er to grant or deny the sa3eF -hat the $1-C &ecretary in several "e3oranda had eJpressly directed %&0C #lfonso2 Jr. and then Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing to F1R+#R$ F1R -1 .,& 1FF,C0 FR1" #// -.0

#PP/,C#-,1N&

0'0"P-,1N

"1R#-1R,%" B0C#%&0 .0 ,& -.0 1N/? 1N0 +.1 C1%/$ 0,-.0R @R#N- 1R $0N? -.0 &#"0F -hat in the case of the 67 CPC:s issued by then Regional $irector #lfredo "ondiguing in favor of the petitioners2 -.0R0 +#& N1 0'0"P-,1N ,&&%0$ B? -.0 $1-C &0CR0-#R? B%- B? -.0 $1-C %N$0R&0CR0-#R? +.1 .#& N1

#%-.1R,-? -1 ,&&%0 -.0 &#"0. Considering the foregoing bac9drop2 3ay the petitioners validly co3pel by "anda3us the respondents to R0@,&-0R their vehicles as GF1R .,R0H based on their alleged approved applications by the then $1-C-C#R #lfredo "ondiguing ;hose

18

authority to do so ;as based on the alleged eJe3ption granted by $1-C %ndersecretary Ricardo #lfonso2 Jr.D +ith all due respect to the .onorable Court2 the ans;er is obviously in the negative. No clear legal right ;as obtained by the petitioners out of the said #PPR1C#/ B? -.0N $irector "ondiguing based on the GeJe3ptionH by %N&0C #lfonso. -his is analogous to unenforceable contracts as defined under #rt. 6458 6 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. ,t is very clear that %&0C #lfonso ;as never authoriEed by the $1-C &ecretary to issue any eJe3ption to the application of the petitioners. ,n fact2 evidence on record sho;s that only the $1-C &ecretary ;ho is authoriEed to grant or deny any eJe3ption to the 3oratoriu3 that is ;hy any application for eJe3ption filed ;ith the office of the said %ndersecretary shall be for;arded to the 1ffice of the $1-C &ecretary. #s such2 the GeJe3ptionH issued by %&0C #lfonso ;as beyond his po;ers and therefore2 %N0NF1RC0#B/02 for being ultra vires2 because he has no authority or legal

representation and clearly acted beyond his po;ers. -he &tate is not estopped fro3 such acts of its officers eJecuted beyond the spheres of their authority. #s such2 the respondents could not be validly co3pelled by "anda3us to perfor3 ;hat is clearly an illegal act. -hey can be co3pelled to perfor3 only 3inisterial acts.

*. CONSIDERING THE !OREGOING !ACTS WHICH ARE UNDISPUTED, MANDAMUS WILL NOT LIE SINCE TO IMPLEMENT AN OBVIOUSLY ILLEGAL DECISION, REVOKED AND REPUDIATED BY NO LESS THAN THE DOTC SECRETARY, COULD NOT BE CONSDIRED MINISTERIAL.

,t is ;ell-settled in this Aurisdiction that an action for 3anda3us is e3ployed to co3pel the perfor3ance of a 3inisterial duty only FPr123nc$ 14 Pan7a/3nan 2/.

R$0ara.31n/ C1993//31n, 'DA SCRA +@6* and not a discretionary act )SY HA VS.

Paragraph 6

19

GALANG, L 'DB'+, A0r35 *@, 'H6+G. No such facts are obtaining in this case as sho;n by the evidence indicated above. ,n the case of HEIRS O! VENTURILLO VS. HON. JESUS V. =UITAIN, BA6 SCRA 'A*2 the &upre3e Court defined G3inisterial actH as applied to 3anda3us casesa as follo;s2 to ;it! -he re3edy of 3anda3us lies to co3pel the perfor3ance of a 3inisterial duty FCARPO VS. CHUA, C@' SCRA C@'*. A 0-r$56 93n3/.$r3a5 ac. 1r "-.62 in contradistinction to a discretionary act2 3/ 1n$ 8h3ch an 1443c$r 1r .r3,-na5 0$r41r9/ 3n a 732$n /.a.$ 14 4ac./, 3n a 0r$/cr3,$" 9ann$r, 3n 1,$"3$nc$ .1 .h$ 9an"a.$ 14 5$7a5 a-.h1r3.6, 83.h1-. r$7ar" .1 .h$ $%$rc3/$ 14 h3/ 18n ?-"79$n., -01n .h$ 0r10r3$.6 1r 390r10r3$.6 14 .h$ ac. "1n$. I4 .h$ 5a8 3901/$/ a "-.6 -01n a 0-,53c

1443c$r, an" 732$/ h39 .h$ r37h. .1 "$c3"$ h18 1r 8h$n .h$ "-.6 /ha55 ,$ 0$r41r9$", /-ch "-.6 3/ "3/cr$.31nar6.
-he above rule ;as li9e;ise enunciated in the case of COBARRUBIAS VS. APOSTOL, CD' SCRA *A ;here it ;as held that! # purely 3inisterial act or duty2 in contradistinction to a discretionary act2 is one ;hich an officer or tribunal perfor3s in a given state of facts2 in a prescribed 3anner2 in obedience to the 3andate of legal authority2 ;ithout regard to the eJercise of his o;n Audg3ent2 upon the propriety or i3propriety of the act done. A

"3/cr$.31nar6 ac., 1n .h$ 1.h$r han", 3/ a 4ac-5.6 c1n4$rr$" -01n a c1-r. 1r 1443c3a5 ,6 8h3ch h$ 9a6 "$c3"$ .h$ >-$/.31n $3.h$r 8a6 an" /.355 ,$ r37h. )citing SISMAET VS. SABAS, C*H SCRA *C')
PHILIPPINE BANK O! COMMUNICATIONS VS. TORIO, *DC SCRA 6@, +CD Ph35. @CG Clearly2 the act sought to be done by the respondents is not a 3inisterial one. -hey are faced ;ith over;hel3ing evidence pointing to the illegality of the Certificates of Public Convenience ;hich ;ere the basis of the de3and of the petitioners to register their vehicles as GF1R .,R0H. &hall they Aust blindly i3ple3ent the sa3e even though they are a;are of the illegality surrounding their issuanceD ,s it 3inisterial for the3 to i3ple3ent an act +.,C. -.0 $1-C &0CR0-#R? 0'PR0&&/? $0&CR,B0$ #& ,//0@#/ #N$ &.1%/$ B0 R0C1>0$ ,""0$,#-0/?D ,s it 3inisterial to disobey the la;ful orders of their superiorsD

20

+ith all due respect2 3anda3us does not lie in this case because of the strong evidence of illegality in the issuance of said CPC:s coupled ;ith the directive of no less than their superior2 &ecretary /eandro "endoEa. -here is doubt as their validity 3a9ing the act discretionary and not 3inisterial. GI. 3/ n$c$//ar6 .ha. .h$ r$/01n"$n. ha/ .h$ 018$r .1 0$r41r9 .h$ ac. c1nc$rn3n7 8h3ch .h$ a0053ca.31n 41r 9an"a9-/ is 3adeF other;ise2 the ;rit ;ill not issue2 HOWEVER CLEAR HIS DUTY TO PER!ORM MAY BE. ... ,f for any reason2 the duty to be perfor3ed is DOUBT!UL, THE

OBLIGATION IS NOT REGARDED AS IMPERATIVE, AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE LE!T TO HIS OTHER REMEDIES.)AL#ATE VS. ALDANA, D SCRA *'H*. For a petition for 3anda3us to prosper 2 it 3ust be sho;n JJJ that the petitioner has a ;ell defined2 clear and certain right to ;arrant the grant thereof. ) C1"355a Sr. 2/. D$ V$n$c3a a.. a. GR. N1. 'BA6AB D$c$9,$r 'A, *AA**. +orth stressing is the Audicial caution that 3anda3us applies only ;here petitioner:s rights is founded clearly in la; and not ;hen it is doubtful. .ere2 it is significant to note that the decisions ) granting the issuance of ne; franchise to herein petitioners* relied upon as source of petitioners rights are null and void fro3 the very beginning having been granted during a

prohibitory period i3posed by the $1-C &ecretary on the franchising functions of /-FRB-C#R ;hich ;as issued after an elaborate audit conducted for the said purpose. Being null and void said decisions approving petitioners application for the issuance of a ne; franchise are inoperative and does not vest any right on herein petitioners. &aid

$ecisions being non-eJistent2 no decisions as clai3ed by petitioners have beco3e final and eJecutory enforceable by 3anda3us. "anda3us ;ill not issue to control or

revie; the eJercise of discretion by a public officer ;here the la; i3poses on hi3 the right or duty to eJercise Audg3ent in reference to any 3atter in ;hich he is re=uired to act. )APRUEBA VS. GAN#ON, 'D SCRA D* -he sa3e rule ;as reiterated in NAPOCOR EMPLOYEES CONSOLIDATED UNION VS. NAPOCOR, CDC SCRA +H62 ;here the &upre3e Court held that! G"anda3us ;ill issue only ;here there is a clear legal right. A c5$ar 5$7a5 r37h. ;ithin the 3eaning of &ection 82 Rule 67 of the Rules of Court MEANS A

21

RIGHT CLEARLY !OUNDED IN OR GRANTED BY LAW, A RIGHT WHICH2 ,N -.0 /#N@%#@0 1F N#-,1N#/ ,NC0&-"0N- #N$ $0C0/1P"0NC1RP1R#-,1N C&. #K%,N12 668 &CR# 6782 6 5 L6OBBM2 is J$n41rc$a,5$ a/ a 9a..$r 14 5a8.: ,n fine2 petitioners failed to 3eet the standard to Austify their resort to the special civil action of 3anda3us.H For 3anda3us to lie2 the legal right of the petitioner 3ust be ;ell defined2 clear and certain2 other;ise2 the petition for the issuance of such ;rit Lof 3anda3usM ;ill be denied. )VILLAMOR VS. LACSON, '* SCRA C'D) LEMI VS. VALENCIA, *6 SCRA *A+G. #s such2 ;here the clai3 of the petitioner is neither clear nor indubitable2 he is not entitled to the coercive right of 3anda3us )A=UINO VS. GSIS, ** SCRA C'B)VALDE# VS. GUTIERRE#, *+ SCRA 66')DEL ROSARIO VS. SUBIDO, +' SCRA +D**

+. THE SECRETARY O! THE DEPARTMENT O! TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS HAS THE POWER O! CONTROL AND SUPERVISION OVER THE ACTS, DECISIONS OR RESOLUTIONS O! THE LT!RB CAR. HENCE, HE CAN REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE DECISION O! THE LT!RB AS APPROVED BY THE THEN DOTC CAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR AL!REDO MONDIGUING EVEN WITHOUT ANY PARTY APPEALING THE SAME. # certificate of public convenience being a 3ere privilege and not a right2 its grant is never a 3inisterial duty but discretionary on the part of the granting authority. 1nly a franchise granted in accordance ;ith eJisting la;s2 rules and regulations 3ay be said to be validly issued. #s such2 it has been held that a Certificate of Public Convenience granted to a transportation co3pany confers no property right on the route covered thereby even assu3ing that the sa3e ;as regularly issued. +ith 3ore reason

for a CPC irregularly issued as in this case. ,t could not be the source of a right on the part of the petitioners.
/u=ue vs. Cillegas2 /-447472 Nove3ber 4B2 6O6O.

22

,n the instant petition2 it should be noted that the =uestioned decisions granting the petitioners application for a certificate of public convenience ;ere approved by then

$1-C-C#R Regional $irector #lfredo P. "ondiguing on January 6B2 455 2 a day before his last day in 1ffice and ;ere filed during the period e3bodied in the covered by the 3oratoriu3

"e3orandu3 of $1-C &ecretary /eandro "endoEa dated #pril 2

4557 2 directing the suspension of all actions or the strict i3ple3entation of 3oratoriu3 on franchising functions in the Cordillera ;ith the eJception of eJtension of validity of franchise Considering the illegality sho;n above in the issuance of the fifteen )67* certificates of public convenience2 has the $1-C &ecretary have the po;er to revo9e and set aside the decision of the then $1-C-C#R #lfredo "ondiguing approving the reco33endation of the /-FRB-C#R ;hich ;as in gross violation of his 3e3orandu3 3andating 3oratoriu3 in such 9ind of issuancesD -he &tate is not estopped by the illegal acts of its officials especially in the issuance of certificates of public convenience ;hich is undoubtedly a 3ere privilege and not a vested right on the part of the petitioners. ,f found to have been illegally issued by his subordinate2 the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector in this case2 the $1-C &ecretary is not ;ithout any re3edy. .e could validly reverse and set aside such act of his subordinate. Petitioner:s argu3ent pales on the face of the fact that the very nature of a certificate of public convenience is at cross purposes ;ith the concept of vested rights. -o this day2 the accepted vie;2 at least insofar as the &tate is concerned2 is that &a c$r.343ca.$ 14 0-,53c

c1n2$n3$nc$ c1n/.3.-.$/ n$3.h$r a 4ranch3/$ n1r a c1n.rac., c1n4$r/ n1 0r10$r.6 r37h., an" 3/ a 9$r$ 53c$n/$ 1r 0r3235$7$.( FPANGASINAN
TRANSPORTATION CO. VS. PSC, @A Ph35. **') A.L. AMMEN TRANSPORTATION VS. LA COMISION DE SERVICIOS PUBLICOS, @* Ph35. BCH) RI#AL LIGHT AND ICE CO. VS. MUNICIPALITY O! MORONG , RI#AL, *B SCRA *DB) SEMBRANO VS. PSC, L ''C+H K L ''BC* C6, J-56 +', 'HCD) MANILA YELLOW TA<ICAB, INC. VS. AUSTIN TA<ICAB, BH Ph35. @@') MANILA TA<ICAB VS. SABELLANO, BH Ph35. @@+G. -he holder of such certificate does not ac=uire a property right in the route covered thereby. Nor does it confer upon the holder any proprietary right or interest or franchise in the public high;ays. )IN RE:

23

EAST PENN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, C' PUR FNSG +'6G. R$21ca.31n 14 .h3/ c$r.343ca.$

"$0r32$/ h39 14 n1 2$/.$" r37h.. FROBERTO

VS. COMMISSSIONERS O! DEPARTMENT O! PUBLIC UTILITIES, '6A N.E. +*'G. /ittle reflection is necessary to sho; that the certificate of public convenience is granted ;ith so 3any strings attached. Ne; and additional burdens2 alteration of the certificate2 AND

EVEN REVOCATION OR ANNULMENT THEREO! IS RESERVED TO THE STATE.D

+ith all due respect2 the $1-C &ecretary has the specific authority to reverse and set aside the $ecision of the then $1-C-C#R Regional $irector "ondiguing approving the Certificates of Public Convenience in favor of the petitioners as reco33ended by the /-FRB-C#R. D$0ar.9$n. Or"$r N1. HH '**D "a.$" J-56 B, 'HHH is too clear to be 3isunderstood. ,t provides! G6.6 -he R$731na5 D3r$c.1r 14 DOTC CAR /ha55 ,$ -n"$r .h$ "3r$c. /-0$r23/31n an" c1n.r15 14 .h$ D$0ar.9$n. S$cr$.ar6. -here is li9e;ise no doubt that the /-FRB-C#R is under the direct control and supervision of the Regional $irector2 $1-C-C#R based on the above-3entioned $epart3ent 1rder. -hus! G4.6. DOTC CAR, .hr1-7h 3./ R$731na5 D3r$c.1r, /ha55 $%$rc3/$ a55 018$r/ an" 4-nc.31n/ enu3erated under &ections 46 and 4 of Chapter 72 Boo9 ,C of 0Jecutive 1rder No. 4O4 TO THE E<TENT O! COVERING ALL THE !UNCTIONAL AREAS PERTAINING -1 -0/1F2 /-12 LT!RB an" ATO WITHIN THE REGION . ,n addition thereto2 the Regional $irector shall perfor3 all other functions as henceforth 3ay be assigned by the $epart3ent &ecretary.H #ttached hereto is a copy of $epart3ent 1rder No. OO-644B dated July 72 6OOO as Ann$% &C( and 3ade an integral part hereof. -he po;er of control by the &ecretary of the $1-C over the /-FRB-C#R is sho;n by the ad3itted fact that the decision of the /-FRB-C#R granting the applications for Certificates of Public Convenience in favor of the petitioners .#$ -1 B0 &%B",--0$ -1 -.0 -.0N $1-C-C#R R0@,1N#/ $,R0C-1R F1R .,& #PPR1C#/ 1R R0J0C-,1N. -.0R0#F-0R2 ,- ,& -.0 $1-C-C#R R0@,1N#/
B

LU=UE VS. VILLEGAS, +A SCRA CAD

24

$,R0C-1R +.1 &.#// R0@,&-0R #& GF1R .,R0H -.0 C0.,C/0& 1F -.0 #PP/,C#N-&2 N1- /-FRB-C#R. SECTION +D L'M, CHAPTER @, BOOK C, E<ECUTIVE ORDER NO. *H*, THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE O! 'HD@ is too clear on the po;er of the $1-C &ecretary to reverse and set aside the $ecision of the $1-C-C#R Regional $irector. -hus!

an" c1n.r15 3nc5-"$ .h$ a-.h1r3.6 .1 ac. "3r$c.56 ;henever a specific function
is entrusted by la; or regulation to a subordinateF direct the perfor3ance of dutyF restrain the co33ission of actsF

GS-0$r23/31n

r$23$8, a00r12$, r$2$r/$ 1r 91"346 ac./ an" "$c3/31n/ 14 /-,1r"3na.$ 1443c3a5/ 1r -n3./PH
Clearly2 the Revised ad3inistrative Code of 6OB grants the $1-C &ecretary not only the po;er of supervision but also the po;er of control over the acts of the $1-CC#R Regional $irector ;ho2 in turn2 has supervision and control over the /-FRB-C#R. -he eJtent of the po;er of control or ;hat can be done by the $1-C &ecretary over the acts of the $1-C-C#R Regional $irector has been the subAect of nu3erous land3ar9 cases.

,n ad3inistrative la; supervision 3eans overseeing or the po;er or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perfor3 their duties. ,f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill the3 the for3er 3ay ta9e such action or step as prescribed by la; to 3a9e the3 perfor3 their duties. C1n.r15, 1n .h$ 1.h$r han",

9$an/ .h$ 018$r 14 an 1443c$r .1 a5.$r 1r 91"346 1r n-55346 1r /$. a/3"$ 8ha. a /-,1r"3na.$ 1443c$r ha" "1n$ 3n .h$ 0$r41r9anc$ 14 h3/ "-.3$/ an" .1 /-,/.3.-.$ .h$ ?-"79$n. 14 .h$ 41r9$r 41r .ha. 14 .h$ 5a..$r.O
1r as held in the case of LACSON MAGALLANES VS. PANO, *'

SCRA DHB C1n.r15 9$an/ N.h$ 018$r 14 an 1443c$r .1 a5.$r 1r 91"346 1r n-55346, 1r /$. a/3"$ 8ha. a /-,1r"3na.$ 1443c$r ha" "1n$ 3n .h$ 0$r41r9anc$ 14 h3/ "-.3$/ an" .1 /-,/.3.-.$ .h$ ?-"79$n. 14 .h$ 41r9$r 41r .ha. 14 .h$ 5a..$r.N ).ebron vs. Reyes2 654 Phil. 6 7* -he President can2 by virtue of his
O

MONDANO VS. SILVOSA, H@ Ph35. 'C+

25

po;er of control2 revie;2 3odify2 alter or nullify any action2 or decision of his subordinate in the eJecutive depart3ents2 bureaus or offices under hi3. )1liveros-orre vs. Bayot2 7B &CR# 4 4F #ng-#ngco vs. Castillo2 et al.2 66B Phil. 646B*. H$ can $%$rc3/$ .h3/

018$r 91.- 0r10r31 83.h1-. n$$" 14 an6 a00$a5 4r19 an6 0ar.6. )1liveros--orre vs. Bayot2 supra*.
#s sho;n above65 the $1-C &ecretary as alter-ego of the President2 &can

$%$rc3/$ .h3/ 018$r F14 c1n.r15G 91.- 0r10r31 83.h1-. n$$" 14 an6 a00$a5 4r19 an6 0ar.6 an" REVERSE AND SET ASIDE .h$ "$c3/31n 14 .h$ .h$n DOTC CAR R$731na5 D3r$c.1r A54r$"1 M1n"37-3n7.
Finally2 as held in the case of SALVADOR M. PERE# an" JUANITA

APOSTAL VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN K PEOPLE O! THE PHILIPPINES, BA+ SCRA *B*: S0r3n73n7 4r19 .h$ 018$r 14 c1n.r15 3/ .h$ "1c.r3n$ 14 >-a5343$" 0153.3ca5 a7$nc6, 8h$r$3n .h$ ac./ 14 a /-,1r"3na.$ ,$ar/ .h$ 39053$" a00r12a5 14 h3/ /-0$r31r, -n5$// ac.-a556 "3/a00r12$" ,6 .h$ 5a..$r )citing the case of KILUSANG BAYAN VS. DOMINGUE#, ET AL., *AB SCRA H**. C. THE PETITION AT BAR SHALL BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT !OR !AILURE TO E<HAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. -he refusal of the respondents in registering the vehicles of the petitioners as GF1R .,R0H could have been =uestioned before the $1-C &ecretary before resort could be done to the .onorable Court. -his is ;ell-settled in this Aurisdiction. Failure to do so is fatal to their cause. -his is so because it had been consistently held by the &upre3e Court that Ga petition for 3anda3us is pre3ature if there are ad3inistrative re3edies available to the petitionerH. )PERE# VS. CITY MAYOR O! CABANATUAN, L '6@D6, Oc.1,$r +', 'H6'G -he petitioners ad3itted that they failed to eJhaust ad3inistrative re3edies and Austified the sa3e by clai3ing that the issues involved in this case are purely legal. +ith
65

1liveros--orre vs. Bayot2 7B &CR# 4 4

26

all due respect2 the sa3e is erroneous as sho;n above. -he =uestions involved here are factual in nature li9e! +as there any eJe3ption issued by the $1-C &ecretary to the petitioners since their application ;as 3ade during the eJistence of a 3oratoriu3D -he failure on their part to eJhaust ad3inistrative re3edies is fatal. #s such2 this case should be dis3issed even on that ground alone. -he decision of the &upre3e Court in the case of NICANOR SANTOS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT O! AGRARIAN RE!ORM, CD+ SCRA B6H2 is very illu3inating on this aspect. -hus! GPetitioner anchors the instant petition on the eJceptions to the rule on eJhausting ad3inistrative re3edies. ,t is true that there are instances ;hen Audicial action 3ay be resorted to i33ediatelyPPetitioner contends that it has no plain2 ade=uate and speedy re3edy eJcept to file the petition for "anda3usP-he Court is not persuaded. -he Court cannot sanction petitioner:s trivial regard of procedural rules. Rules of procedure 3ay be relaJed if their strict enforce3ent ;ill bring about failure of Austice. .o;ever2 this principle does not apply ;hen it ;ill allo; petitioner to benefit fro3 its unAustified violations of procedural rulesPTh$ 9an"a.1r6 r$c1-r/$ .1 .h$

a"93n3/.ra.32$ a00$a5/ 0r1c$// ,$41r$ an6 ?-"3c3a5 r$9$"6 3/ 3n21O$" 4a55/ 83.h3n .h$ a9,3. 14 .h$ 0r3nc305$ 14 $%ha-/.31n 14 a"93n3/.ra.32$ r$9$"3$/.H
"anda3us ;ill not issue if so3e other e=ually ade=uate re3edy is still available in the ordinary course of la; )CALTE< VS. CIR, *+ SCRA CH*G. ,n this case2 the

action of the respondents should have been appealed to the &ecretary of -ransportation and Co33unications before resort is to be 3ade before the .onorable Court. Failure to follo; the procedure is fatal to the cause of the petitioners. .ence2 this petition should be dis3issed. PRAYER +.0R0F1R02 and in vie; of all the foregoing2 it is 3ost respectfully prayed of the .onorable Court to $,&",&& the instant petition for lac9 of 3erit. Baguio City July 62 455

27

GACAYAN PAREDES AGMATA & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

66-B %rbano &t.2 Baguio City

by! LAURO D. GACAYAN

Roll No. 8488B2 June 82 6OB6 ,BP 1.R. No. 667B642 $ece3ber 662 4556 )For 4557* Baguio City P-R No. 66484B 2 February 82 455 Baguio City

0'P/#N#-,1N
)Re! &ection 662 Rule 68 of the 6OO Rules of Civil Procedure*

Th$ 1r373na5 c106 14 .h3/ 05$a"3n7 8a/!

L J M Filed directly ;ith this .onorable Court<1fficeF L M Filed ;ith this .onorable Court<1ffice by Registered "ail ;ith Return Card because!
L M -he distance bet;een this .onorable Court<1ffice and the 1ffice of the undersigned counsel 3a9es personal filing i3practicableF L M /ac9 of office staff<personnel to effect personal serviceF L M -i3e constraintsF L M %nfavorable ;eather conditions prevents personal serviceF L M Pleading is not urgent in nature.

C106Ec103$/ 14 .h3/ 05$a"3n7 8a/E8$r$!

L M Personally served on counsel of the adverse partyF L JM &ent to counsel of the adverse party by Registered "ail ;ith Return Card due to the follo;ing reason!
L J M -he distance bet;een the offices of counsels 3a9es personal filing i3practicableF L J M /ac9 of office staff<personnel to effect personal serviceF L J M -i3e constraintsF L M %nfavorable ;eather conditions prevents personal serviceF L M Pleading is not urgent in nature.

LAURO D. GACAYAN Copy furnished! ATTY. RUDOL!O A. LOCKEY Roo3 454 /y3an 1gilby Centru3 87B "agsaysay #ve.2 Baguio City