Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

MATIENZO V ABELLERA

FACTS
Petitioners and private respondents are taxicab operators in Metro Manila. The respondents, however, admit to
operate colorum or kabit taxis, thus, they applied for legalization of their unauthorized excess taxis citing PD 101.
Respondent Board set such applications for hearing and granted provisional authority to operate. Petitioners argue
that the Board cannot do this as the six month period in the Transitory Provision has lapsed and has become functus
officio.
ISSUES
W/N the board can grant such permits.
RULING
YES. The power vested by PD 101 to BOT was to grant special permits of limited term for the operation of public
utility motor vehicles as may, in the judgment of the Board, be necessary to replace or convert clandestine operators
into legitimate and responsible operators. Such power remains even after the six months prescribed in the law as
such period merely provides for the withdrawal of the States waiver of its right to punish said colorum operators.
Notice and hearing are not required for the grant of such temporary authority because of its provisional nature and
that the primary application shall be given a full hearing.
To determine whether a Board or Commission has power, it should be (1) liberally construed in light of its purpose for
which is was created and (2) that incidentally necessary to a full implementation of legislative intent as being
germane to the law.
Thus, the BOR shall, from time to time, re-study the public need for public utilities in any area in the Phils for the
purpose of re-evaluating the policies.