Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 160 views

    LTFRB v. Hon. Carlos Valenzuela of The RTC

    Uploaded by

    jupert jericho remollo
    The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the LTFRB from obstructing Angkas' business operations. However, the Supreme Court annulled the writ, finding that Angkas did not have a clear and unmistakable right to operate without complying with LTFRB rules. While irreparable damage is a requirement for the writ, it is not sufficient if there is no clear right. Angkas drivers, as common carriers transporting passengers for pay, were required to obtain operating certificates from the LTFRB. The RTC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ without a clear right established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LTFRB v. Hon. Carlos Valenzuela of The RTC

    Uploaded by

    jupert jericho remollo
    160 views4 pages
    The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the LTFRB from obstructing Angkas' business operations. However, the Supreme Court annulled the writ, finding that Angkas did not have a clear and unmistakable right to operate without complying with LTFRB rules. While irreparable damage is a requirement for the writ, it is not sufficient if there is no clear right. Angkas drivers, as common carriers transporting passengers for pay, were required to obtain operating certificates from the LTFRB. The RTC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ without a clear right established.

    Original Title

    LTFRB v. Hon. Carlos Valenzuela of the RTC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the LTFRB from obstructing Angkas' business operations. However, the Supreme Court annulled the writ, finding that Angkas did not have a clear and unmistakable right to operate without complying with LTFRB rules. While irreparable damage is a requirement for the writ, it is not sufficient if there is no clear right. Angkas drivers, as common carriers transporting passengers for pay, were required to obtain operating certificates from the LTFRB. The RTC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ without a clear right established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    160 views4 pages

    LTFRB v. Hon. Carlos Valenzuela of The RTC

    Uploaded by

    jupert jericho remollo
    The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the LTFRB from obstructing Angkas' business operations. However, the Supreme Court annulled the writ, finding that Angkas did not have a clear and unmistakable right to operate without complying with LTFRB rules. While irreparable damage is a requirement for the writ, it is not sufficient if there is no clear right. Angkas drivers, as common carriers transporting passengers for pay, were required to obtain operating certificates from the LTFRB. The RTC therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the writ without a clear right established.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 4

    CASE : LTFRB v. Hon.

    Carlos Valenzuela of the RTC

    DOCTRINE: if there is no clear and unmistakable right to be protected that exists


    in favor of the applicant, then a writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued.

    FACTS :

    1. 🛵 2016 : DBDOYC Inc. ( DBDOYC/Angkas company) brought Angkas


    ( Ride hailing service) to the Philippines. But, the problem was DBDOYC did
    not comply with the rules set by the LTFRB ( Land Transportation Franchising
    and Regulatory Board) by doing the following :
    A. (A-💳 )Not having the company accredited as a TNC ( Transport
    Network Company)
    B. ( 📜 ) Not having the Angkas driver obtain a certificate of public
    convenience for providing a public service as a common carrier.

    2. Reason for non-compliance of DBDOYC was that they contended the


    following:
    A. 📲 that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the LTFRB because
    they are not a company that provides transportation services to the
    public. Rather they are a merely a tech company that matches
    motorcycle drivers to private passengers.

    - Actually they are covered under DO 2015-11 as a Transportation network


    company.

    B. 👩💼 That their drivers don’t need a Certificate of Public Convenience


    because they do not provide a public service as the drivers are
    private contractors.
    3. 📆 📸 2017: LTFRB had a press release to inform the public the due to the
    non-compliance of DBDOYC of the rules set by the LTFRB they cannot
    legally operate. ——— DBDOYC continued to operate nonetheless.
    4. 👨⚖ 2018: DBDOYC filed a case in court for declaratory relief with an
    Application for the issuance of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
    against the LTFRB. The reason was to Prevent the LTFRB from obstructing
    their business operations . ——— RTC granted and issue the writ or
    preliminary injunction. ( Case Incapable of pecuniary estimation)
    5. 🧠 RTC’s Reason for granting:
    A. There was a clear and unmistakable right which was the constitutional
    right to liberty to conduct DBDOYC’s business.
    B. There would be grave and irreparable damage caused to DBDOYC if the
    writ would not be grant, as business operation could be hampered or
    stopped.
    6. ⚖ The Case at Bar: The LTFRB filed a petition for certiorari against the order
    of the RTC granting the Preliminary injunction. The LTFRB alleges that were
    was grave abuse of discretion in the granting of the writ.

    ISSUES :

    1. WON there was GADALEJ (Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or


    execs of Jurisdiction) on the part of the RTC judge in granting the writ of ?
    2. Why did DBDOYC not have a clear and unmistakeable right ?

    RULING : RTC’s issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is annulled as here


    was no clear and unmistakable right. The RTC is mandated to conduct further
    proceedings on the main case for declaratory relief.

    1. Yes, there was GADALEJ because DBDOYC did not have a clear and
    unmistakable right. Which is one of the requirements of the grant of the writ
    or preliminary injunction together with an urgent necessity such as
    irreparable damage.

    - The threat or irreparable damage is not enough if there is no proof


    of a clear and unmistakable right. ( Spouses Nisce v. Equitable PCI
    Bank, Inc. )

    2. Grounds of the grant of the writ of preliminary Injunction:

    1. ✅ There must be a clear and unmistakable right to be protected.


    2. ➡ The right is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined
    3. 🧟 The invasion of the right is 👚 material and substantial.
    4. ( 🕗 🗻 🍚 - 💔 ) There is an urgent or paramount necessity for the writ to
    prevent serious(black) and irreparable damage.

    3. DBDOYC did not have a clear and unmistakable right, but a unclear and
    doubtful one, due to the following reasons:
    A. Under RA 4136: Land transportation law: Sec 7. States that private
    motor cycles🛵 shall not be used for hire 🙋 under any circumstances
    and shall not be used to solicit, accept, or be used to transport
    passengers or freight for pay. ( meaning they cannot be used as common
    carriers)
    B.
    C. Under the inherent powers of the state: Police power- The state has the
    inherent power to regulate or restrain the use of liberty and property for
    the general welfare of the people. This means the state has the power
    through the LTFRB to regulate the liberty of DBDOYC to conduct its
    business so long as it is for the general welfare of the people. This is
    allowed as in this case public transportation is a public concern.
    D. Under the Civil Code: Common carriers are those persons that are
    engaged in the business of transporting passengers and or goods on
    land water or air for compensation. In the Civil code it does not
    distinguish how often you engage in this business, so long as you
    transport passengers and or goods for compensation.

    - The Angkas drivers are a common carrier and not a private contractor
    because they offer their service indiscriminately to the public. As they
    do not specifically choose who their clients will be and the price of the
    transaction is already fix by DBDOYC.

    E. Under the Public Service act, Common carriers are considered a public
    service which requires them to obtain a certificate of public
    convenience. Hence, the angkas drivers need to obtain a certificate of
    public convenience if they wish to continue providing their shrives as a
    common carrier.

    IN REALITY:
    1. Angkas in Manila has already been grated by the LTFRB a franchise or it has
    already been accredited.
    CASE 2 :

    FACTS :
    ISSUES :
    RULING :
    NOTES :

    CASE 3 :

    FACTS :
    ISSUES :
    RULING :
    NOTES :

    CASE 4 :

    FACTS :
    ISSUES :
    RULING :
    NOTES :

    You might also like