Case Digest: KMU vs. Garcia, 239 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 115381

 

KMU vs. Garcia, 239 SCRA 386, G.R. No. 115381, December 23, 1994

Subject: Transportation Law

FACTS

The instant petition for certiorari assails the constitutionality and validity of certain memoranda, circulars and/or orders of the DOTC and LTFRB which, among others, establish a presumption of public need in favor of applicants for certificates of public convenience (CPC) and place on the oppositor the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service, in patent violation not only of Sec. 16(c) of CA 146, as amended, but also of Sec. 20(a) of the same Act mandating that fares should be “just and reasonable.”

In Dec 1990, Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Inc. (PBOAP) filed an application for fare rate increase. It was granted by LTFRB. In March 1992, the DOTC Secretary issued Department Order No. 92-587 defining the policy framework on the regulation of transport services. It provides among others: “The requirements to grant a certificate to operate, or certificate of public convenience, shall be: proof of Filipino citizenship, financial capability, public need, and sufficient insurance cover to protect the riding public. In determining public need, the presumption of need for a service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. The burden of proving that there is no need for a proposed service shall be with the oppositor(s).”

The LTFRB then issued Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 promulgating the guidelines for the implementation of DOTC DO 92-587. The Circular provides, among others, the challenged portions: Part IV. Policy Guidelines on the Issuance of Certificate of Public Convenience. The issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience is determined by public need. The presumption of public need for a service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant, while burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service shall be the oppositor(s).

In March 1994, petitioner KMU filed a petition before the LTFRB opposing the upward adjustment of bus fares. KMU claimed that the establishment of a presumption of public need in favor of an applicant for a proposed transport service without having to prove public necessity, is illegal for being violative of the Public Service Act. But the LTFRB dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition for certiorari with an urgent prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order.

In their Comment filed by the OSG, public respondents DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia, Jr. and the LTFRB claimed that it is within DOTC and LTFRB’s authority to set a fare range scheme and establish a presumption of public need in applications for certificates of public convenience.

ISSUE

Whether DOTC DO 92-587 and LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 are violative of the Public Service Act insofar as they affect provisions creating a presumption of public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the opposition.

RULING

Yes, DOTC DO 92-587 and LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 are violative of the Public Service Act insofar as they affect provisions creating a presumption of public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the opposition.

A certificate of public convenience (CPC) is an authorization granted by the LTFRB for the operation of land transportation services for public use as required by law. Pursuant to Section 16(a) of the Public Service Act, as amended, the following requirements must be met before a CPC may be granted, to wit

(i) the applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or joint-stock company constituted and organized under the laws of the Philippines, at least 60 per centum of its stock or paid-up capital must belong entirely to citizens of the Philippines;

(ii) the applicant must be financially capable of undertaking the proposed service and meeting the responsibilities incident to its operation; and

(iii) the applicant must prove that the operation of the public service proposed and the authorization to do business will promote the public interest in a proper and suitable manner. It is understood that there must be proper notice and hearing before the PSC can exercise its power to issue a CPC.

In this case, Part IV of LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92- 009 is entirely incompatible and inconsistent with Section 16(c)(iii) of the Public Service Act which requires that before a CPC will be issued, the applicant must prove by proper notice and hearing that the operation of the public service proposed will promote public interest in a proper and suitable manner. On the contrary, the policy guideline states that the presumption of public need for a public service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant. In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the former must prevail. By its terms, public convenience or necessity generally means something fitting or suited to the public need. As one of the basic requirements for the grant of a CPC, public convenience and necessity exists when the proposed facility or service meets a reasonable want of the public and supply a need which the existing facilities do not adequately supply. The existence or nonexistence of public convenience and necessity is therefore a question of fact that must be established by evidence, real and/or testimonial; empirical data; statistics and such other means necessary, in a public hearing conducted for that purpose.

Verily, the power of a regulatory body to issue a CPC is founded on the condition that after full-dress hearing and investigation, it shall find, as a fact, that the proposed operation is for the convenience of the public. Basic convenience is the primary consideration for which a CPC is issued, and that fact alone must be consistently borne in mind. Also, existing operators in subject routes must be given an opportunity to offer proof and oppose the application. Therefore, an applicant must, at all times, be required to prove his capacity and capability to furnish the service which he has undertaken to render. And all this will be possible only if a public hearing were conducted for that purpose. Therefore, DOTC DO 92-587 and LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009 are violative of the Public Service Act insofar as they affect provisions creating a presumption of public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the opposition.