REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 217-QUEZON CITY ANGAT TSUPER SAMAHAN NG MGA TTSUPER AT OPERATOR NG PILIPINAS GENUINE ORGANIZATION TRANSPORT COALITION (STOP & GO), INC. rep. by PASCUAL “JUN” MAGNO, Petitioners, - versus ~ CIVIL CASE NO. R-QZN-15-08289-CV DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS rep. by JOSEPH EMILIO AGUINALDO ABAYA in his capacity ‘As Secretary, and LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD Rep. by ATTY. WINSTON M. GINEZ, CPA, ATTY. ANTONIO ENRILE-INTON, JR. and ENGR. RONALDO F. CORPUS in their capacity ‘As members of the Board and ATTY. ROBERTO P. CABRERA III in his capacity as Executive Director of the Board, Respondents. ORDER This refers to a Petition for Injunction with Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction filed by petitioner Angat Tsuper Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas Genuine Organization Transport Coalition (STOP and GO) Inc. represented by Pascual “Jun” Magno against respondents Department of Transportation and Communications represented by Hon. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya in his capacity as Secretary; Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board represented by Atty. Winston M. Ginez, CPA, as its Chairman; Atty. Antonio Enrile-Inton, Jr. and Engr. Ronaldo F. Corpus in their capacity as members eR }iHED ICG, MARIIEN® eBUTAS aMNES C1 EOE OF oyu2 of the LTFRB Board; and, Atty. Roberto P. Cabrera IIt in his capacity as Executive Director of the same Board. Petitioner Angat Tsuper Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas Genuine Organization Transport Coalition (STOP and GO) Inc. is a rational federation duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and represented by its National President Pascual "Jun" Magno : by virtue of a Board Resolution No. 01-S-2014 as shown by @ Secretary's Certificate marked as Exh. A’, The members of the federation are concerned Filipino citizens, taxpayers, operators and drivers of public utlity vehicles such jeeps, AUV express, taxis and tricycles. It appears that on August 5, 2010, respondent LTFRB issued Department Order No. 2010-25 (Recalling LTFRB MC Nos. 2009-031, 2010- 007 and 2010-19) with the objective of imposing moratorium on the ‘acceptance of applications for taxi franchises. (On December 10, 2014, DOTC Issued a Memorandum directing the discontinuance of the acceptance of applications for Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) for the purpose of issuing Route Measures Capacities. When the two issuances were made by the DOTC, no franchises or Certificates of Public Convenience were issued except for: 1, Tourist car, bus, AUV and Jeepney transport services; 2. Vehicles for Hire: 3. School bus services; and : 4, Vehicles propelled by engine using alternative fuels such as LPG, CNG, or electric-powered motors. It also appears that Uber System, Inc., Grab Taxi began operation in ‘the last quarter of 2014, second quarter of 2015, respectively, while U-hop ‘operated only recently. These three companies are called “Transportation Network Companies (TNC),” and the vehicles operating under them are called “Transportation Network Vehicle Service Voy CVE rey 10 NAR, WARIENB @RUTAS SaMnes eo = same3 (On May 8, 2015, the DOTC issued Department Order No. 2015-11 (Further Amending Department Order No. 97-1097 to Promote Mobility) Encouraging “innovation across all forms of public land transport in order to increase mobility on major thoroughfares, boost travel time, improve the quality, sustainability and reliability of public transport s respond to the needs of the modern commuter.” It also provides @ new form of public transport service called “Transportation Network Vehicle Service (TNVS)". ervices, and The petitioner stated that D.O. No. 2015-11 allowed units belonging to TNVS to operate for hire even without Certificate of Public Convenience, ‘and that the LTFRB must conduct hearings and an applicant must satisfy the requirements prescribed by the rules and regulations before a CPC can be granted by the LTFRB. Pursuant to D.O. No. 2015-11, the LTFRB issued on May 28, 2015 four Memorandum Circulars, to wit: 1) Memorandum Circular No. 2015-15 (Rules and Regulations to Govern the Accreditation of Transportation Network Companies); 2) Memorandum Circular No. 2015-16 (Terms and Conditions of a Certificate of Transportation Network Company Accreditation); 3) Memorandum Circular No. 2015-17 (Implementing Guidelines on the Acceptance of Applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience to Operate a Transportation Network Vehicle Service); and 4) Memorandum Circular No. 2015-18 (Terms and Conditions of a Certificate of Public Convenience to Operate a Transportation Network Vehicle Service). In the petition, the petitioners further alleged that it is very easy to operate a unit/vehicle belonging to TNVS as one has to just secure membership from TNC and if equipped with the necessary technological Gadgets, the vehicle is already for hire and the commuters can access to it; many aspiring transport operators buy cars, then apply for membership with TNC, and they operate as taxis after being issued Provisional eiirey, MARLENE aetTas 2 CIPOa is easy scheme/procedure of ‘Authorities (PA) by the LTFRB; that thi ein conducting a tax! business or vehicle for hire has resulted to the increas ales of cars and other motor vehicles; that this could also be one of the Fessons of the present heavy traffic in the metropolis; that the continued requests of the members and officers of the petkioner’s association for the /Franchises were all denied by the LTFRB; that only accreditations are given to TNC and provisional authority are subsequently given to the applicants to operate as TNVS while the CPCS have Yet t9 De processed and Issued by the LTFRB, thus, the units under TNVS are ‘operating without CPC; and, that their members have suffered low incomes due to the operations of the TNVS-TNC affiliated vehicles. issuance of CPC: ‘The petitioner also stated that on August 19, 2015, the LTFRB Issued a Certificate of Accreditation to Uber System, Inc., and on ‘August 27, 2015, the LTFRB issued a Provisional Authority to Uber i ‘System, Inc. The petitioner presented its witness Pascual Magno, Jr. whose testimonies are summarized as follows: That he is the president of Angat Tsuper Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas Genuine Organization Transport Coalition (Stop and Go), Inc. which Is ‘a coalition of concerned Filipino citizens, taxpayers, operators and drivers of public utility vehicles like jeeps, taxis, AUV express, tricycles plying different routes in Metro Manila and nearby places; that he testified asking for the issuance of a TRO to temporarily stop for : twenty days the implementation of DOTC Department Order No. 2015- (011 and LTFRB Memorandum Circulars Nos. 2015-15, 2015-16, 2015- 17 and 2015-18 implementing it in order to stop TNVS vehicles owned and operated by UBER and GRAB Taxi from operating as taxi units without Certificate of Public Convenience or franchises from LTFRB required under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 (Public service shall operate in the Service Act) which provides that “no pul Philippines without possessing a valid and subsisting certificate from the Public Service Commission known as Certificate of Public Convenience”; that UBER and GRAB Taxi started its operations in the last quarter of 2014 with 1500 units last May 2045 pd MARILEN B '@RUTAS: RUNIEH of ER Or SoUhave now reached more than 2,900 per Philippine Dally Inquirer's news article containing the statement of LTFRB Chairmain Winston Ginez; that the effects of the implementation of DOTS DO No. 2015-11 and the implementing LTFRB Memorandum Circulars resulted to the decrease in the income of taxi drivers by PHP60O.00 2 day since their net earnings is from PhP1,200.00 to php1,500.00, and thelr net income is now around PhP60O.00 a day only while the drivers of UV Express now earn only PhP1,200.00, instead of PhP2,500.00 php3,000.00, with a reduction of PRPGOO.00 UP! the reason for the decrease in their income is that many passengers now ride in the UBER and GRAB Taxis; that another effect of the implementation of the DOTC DO No. 2015-11 and LTFRB Circulars the existence today of heavy and chaotic traffic situation in the National Capital Region prought about by the more than 2,900 UP 1? 6,000 TNVS units plying EDSA and other principal routes; that they asked for a 20-day TRO to - protect their rights as taxi drivers to regain their income levels and to ply their taxis with ease and comfort to be realized by an orderly traffic flow especially along EDSA and main thoroughfares; that the member farivers of tax! and UV Express wrote letters to the Association protesting the taxi operations of UBER ‘and GRAB; and that the DOTC- LTFRB have been denying them issuance of CPC while TNVS-UBER and GRAB operators are granted provisional authorities to operate their taxis per letter to them by the DOTC, and this is a denial of due process of law. (On the other hand, the Department of Transportation and ‘Communications represented by Hon. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya + in his capacity as Secretary of the DoTC, Land Transportation . Franchising and Regulatory Board represented by its Chairman Hon. itty. Winston M. Ginez, CPA, Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton, Jr. and Engr. Ronaldo Corpus in their capacity as members of the LTFRB Board, and ‘Atty. Roberto P. Cabrera, IIT in his capacity as Executive Director of the LTERB Board, through counsel, filed their Comment/Opposition (To the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminay Injunction) states, among others: that there is no actual ae controversy such that DOTC DO No. 2015-11 and the four L MARTENS eBUTAS Baan as nae6 circulars were issued in recognition of new forms of transport services such as TNVS to address the large demand for transport services In expeditious and responsive ways; the petitioner, in filing the petition, is questioning the wisdom of the department order and the LTFRE Circulars; that the petitioner does not have a legal standing to Sus because the drivers and members of the said Association and 95 taxpayers, failed to establish that respondents illegally disbursed public money in the issuance and implementation of the subject department order and memorandum circulars, they did not show that there Is a real violation of their rights either as drivers, operators oF itizens; that the petitioner failed to Implead other indispensable parties in the petition as to who are the subject of the department Grder and circulars to vest the court with jurisdiction over them to nat deberinnerton endtcresotutionof the ‘Penton: and; the petitioner is not enttied to a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction for the reasons that it folled to prove that ft has 2 dear and unmistakable right to be protected, that there is no material and . Substantial invasion of the rights of the petitioner and Its members 1 the Association, and that the petitioner failed to establish irreparable damage and injury to itself and its members. On October 19, 2015, the court admitted the petitioner's Formal of Exhibits (TRO) consisting of Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, Fr Gy Hy and L, with its sub-markings, except Exhibits J, K and M because these exhibits were provisionally marked only and the original copies thereof were not presented/submitted to the court, but subject to the courts appreciation of their probative value. ‘Thereafter, the respondents manifested before the court that their Comment would serve their Opposition to the petitioner's application for TRO/preliminary mandatory injunction, and In addition they presented their oral arguments in open court relterating the grounds stated in their Comment opposing the Issuance of the said injunctive relief. "pauen MARL eR ORUT) aaa cise ee7 subse . e quently, the petitioner made counter-oral arguments refuting the position of the respondents. Afterward, the respondents orally submitted in court their Formal Offer of Exhibits consisting of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, and the court admitted them subject to the court's appreciation of its probative value. “The rule pertinent to the resolution of the issue as to whether oF not a TRO be granted to the applicant-movant is Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court, quoted below: “Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — ‘A preliminary injunction may be granted when It is established: (a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, fond the whole or part of such relief consists In restraining the commission or continuance of the act PRES erompleined of, or my reauiring the performance of an act or acts, either for 2 limited period or perpetually; (b) That the commission, continuance OF nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or (©) That a party, court, agency or 2 person IS doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or Is precuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in Violation of the rights of applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.” ‘as held in a litany of cases, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued upon the concurrence of the following essential requisites, namely: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious/damage. wou INIED at MAREN B GRUTAS maayen 1m eT8 Based on the Initial findings after a preliminary assessment of evidenc mre: © and arguments presented by the parties, the court, at this ac Of the proceedings and without Prejudging the merits of the Petition, hereby rules to grant a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to the petitioner for having established compliance with the three concurring requirements for the issuance of the said relief. As to the first, the petitioner has established that there is 2 material and substantial invasion of the rights of the officers and members of the Association as holders of Certificates of Public Convenience necessary for the operation of their utility vehicles. ‘As to the second, the petitioner has shown a clear and unmistakable right to be protected which is founded or granted by law as recipients of franchises before they operated their units as public utility vehicles and their vested rights are affected by the issuance of provisional authorities to TNVS-TNC vehicles plying the routes of Metro Manila. Likewise, the petitioner has demonstrated that there is extreme urgency to issue TRO to the petitioner to prevent grave and irreparable injury and damages to the Association's officers and members because their claim that they suffer less or low incomes and earnings is found to be persuasive due to the sudden and uncontrolled increase in the number of TNVS utility vehicles running in the streets of Metro Manila. Based on the foregoing premises and considerations, a TRO is hereby issued by the court in favor of the petitioner restraining respondents Department of Transportation and Communications represented by its Secretary Hon. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board represented by its Honorable Chairman Atty. Winston M. Ginez, CPA, Atty. Antonio Enrile Inton, Jr. and Engr. Ronaldo Corpus in their capacity as Members of the LTFRB Board, and Atty. Roberto P, Cabrera, III in his capacity as Executive Director of the LTFRB Board, and all persons or representatives acting in their behalves tors sgatinuing the MAREN B RBUTAS BRAC ot ene am me9 pepiemeniation and enforcement of DOTC Department Order No. 2015-11, LTFRB Memorandum Circulars N 2016-17 and 2015-18 and other Include the stopping of accepting, processing and approving of applications of motor vehicles as public utility vehicles accredited and belonging to TNVS and under the command and ‘operation of TNC for a * _~ Period of Twenty (20) days effective from date of receipt hereof. los. 2015-15, 2015-16, juances relative thereto which ‘The petitioner is required to post a bond in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (PhP300,000.00) Pesos, either in cash or surety, for payment to the respondents sought to be réstrained as damages which they may sustain if the court should finally decide that the petitioner is not entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order. The hearing of the petitioner's application for preliminary injunction is set on December 8, 2015 at 8:30 in the morning. Furnish a copy of this Order to all parties/counsels by Court . ‘Sheriff Reynaldo Madolaria. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Philippines, November 27, 2015. ORIGINAL SIGNED SANTIAGO M. ARENAS. Judge Copy Furnished: TERRO PAHILGA LAW OFFICES ATTY. DAVID D. ERRO. For the petitioners NO. 160, 2"! Floor, LL Bldg Panay Avenue corner EDSA, QC [ATTY. ANNA ESPERANZA R. SOLOMON Assistant Solicitor General ATTY. RAYMOND 1. RIGODON ‘Senior State Solictor ATTY. JOAN V. RAMOS-FABELLA Senior State Solicitor ATTY. DIANNE MARGARETTE T. DE LOS REYES ‘Associate Solicitor ATTY. MARIA CRISTINA T. MUNDIN ening fT ‘Asocate Solctor fore Responders Office of the Soictor General 134 Amorsolo St, Legasp Vilage, Makati City ss bowsras