G.R. No. 218593 , June 15, 2020
Bagong Repormang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator sa Rotang Pasig Quiapo via Palengke San Joaquin Ikot, Inc., represented by its President, Cornelio R. Sadsad, Jr., Petitioner, vs. City of Mandaluyong, Hon. Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr., Luisito Espinosa, and Amar Santdas, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bagong Repormang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator sa Rotang Pasig Quiapo via Palengke San Joaquin Ikot, Inc. filed a Petition for Injunction with prayer for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against the City of Mandaluyong. The petitioner sought to enforce its members’ alleged right to pass through, load, and unload passengers on the road under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover, based on their Certificates of Public Convenience (CPC) authorizing them to ply the route “Pasig (TP) Quiapo (Echague) via Sta. Mesa, C. Palanca,” which includes Shaw Boulevard. The petitioner claimed that city traffic enforcers prohibited this activity and harassed its members by issuing ordinance violation receipts for offenses like “obstruction” and “out of route,” despite no specific ordinance expressly prohibiting passage under the flyover. The City of Mandaluyong invoked its Traffic Management Code (Ordinance No. 358, Series of 2005), which authorizes the Traffic and Parking Management Office to adjust turning points and terminals of public utility vehicles and prohibits loading and unloading at the congested Shaw Boulevard-EDSA crossing area. The Regional Trial Court denied the application for a temporary restraining order, the writ of preliminary injunction, and ultimately the main Petition for Injunction, finding no clear legal right for the petitioner’s members to ply under the flyover and upholding the city’s traffic regulation as a valid exercise of power. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review, arguing, among other things, that the appellate court’s judgment was based on a misapprehension of facts and that the injunction should have been issued to protect its members’ rights under their CPCs.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the main action for injunction should have been granted. Subsumed under this are: (1) whether the member-drivers, through their Certificates of Public Convenience, have a clear legal right to ply through the road under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover; and (2) whether respondent City of Mandaluyong violated this right.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that a Certificate of Public Convenience does not vest property rights or an absolute right to conduct business along the authorized route. It is a privilege subject to compliance with local traffic regulations. The authority of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) to issue CPCs is only supplemental to the right of local governments to control and regulate traffic in their localities under the Local Government Code. The City of Mandaluyong’s prohibition against loading and unloading under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover, pursuant to its Traffic Management Code, is a valid exercise of its police power to address traffic congestion and promote public order and safety. This regulation does not modify the authorized route in the CPCs but merely adjusts the turning points and terminals, which is within the city’s delegated legislative power. Consequently, the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right that was violated, which is a requisite for the issuance of a writ of injunction. The Court also declined to review factual findings, as the petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the case fell under any exception to the rule that only questions of law are reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari.