Navigating Public Convenience and Local Traffic Regulations: A Landmark Ruling on Jeepney Routes

The Supreme Court has settled a crucial question for public utility vehicle operators: does a certificate of public convenience from the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) give a jeepney operator an absolute right to ply a route, even against local traffic rules? In Bagong Repormang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator sa Rotang Pasig Quiapo via Palengke San Joaquin Ikot, Inc. v. City of Mandaluyong (G.R. No. 218593, June 15, 2020), the Court ruled that it does not. Local governments retain the power to regulate traffic within their territories, and franchise holders must comply with these regulations.

The Case: A Dispute Over a Flyover

A transport group representing jeepney drivers sought to enjoin the City of Mandaluyong from preventing its members from passing under the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA flyover. The drivers held certificates of public convenience authorizing routes that included Shaw Boulevard. They claimed that traffic enforcers harassed them by issuing violation receipts for "obstruction," "no seat belt," and "out of route," despite no ordinance expressly prohibiting passage under the flyover.

The City of Mandaluyong, however, invoked its Traffic Management Code (Ordinance No. 358, Series of 2005). The Code authorized the Traffic and Parking Management Office to adjust turning points and terminals of public utility vehicles and prohibited loading and unloading along the Shaw Boulevard-EDSA crossing area due to traffic congestion.

The Issue: Franchise Rights vs. Local Police Power

The central issue was whether the drivers, through their certificates of public convenience, had a clear legal right to ply the road under the flyover, and whether the City violated that right by prohibiting passage.

The Ruling: Franchises Are Privileges, Not Property Rights

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that a certificate of public convenience is a mere license or privilege, not a property right. It does not vest the holder with any proprietary interest in the route or the public highways.

The Court cited settled jurisprudence: a certificate of public convenience constitutes neither a franchise nor a contract, confers no property right, and is a mere license or privilege. The holder does not acquire a property right in the route covered thereby.

Local Governments' Power to Regulate Traffic

The Court emphasized that the LTFRB's authority to issue certificates is only supplemental to the right of local governments to control and regulate traffic in their localities. Under the Local Government Code, cities have the power to regulate traffic on all streets and bridges and to establish bus and vehicle stops and terminals. The Court cited Lagman v. City of Manila (1966), which clarified that the authority to issue certificates does not remove a local government's power to regulate traffic. Local governments are given broad latitude in crafting traffic rules because they are directly familiar with the conditions peculiar to their communities.

The Specific Regulation Was Valid

The Court found that Section 113 of Mandaluyong's Traffic Management Code did not violate the drivers' certificates. The provision authorized the Traffic and Parking Management Office to adjust turning points and terminals without necessarily modifying authorized routes. The regulation was a valid exercise of police power to address traffic congestion.

The Court also noted that the drivers' own certificates required compliance with resolutions of local government units insofar as they are applicable. Furthermore, the drivers admitted to loading and unloading passengers in prohibited areas, which was a clear violation of the City's Traffic Management Code.

Practical Takeaways

• Certificates of public convenience are privileges, not property rights. They do not grant absolute rights to operate along a route regardless of local regulations.
• Local governments have broad authority to regulate traffic. Under the Local Government Code, cities and municipalities can enact traffic ordinances, adjust turning points, and designate loading and unloading zones.
• Franchise holders must comply with local ordinances. A certificate from the LTFRB does not exempt a public utility vehicle from complying with valid local traffic regulations.
• Traffic regulations are a valid exercise of police power. Measures addressing traffic congestion and promoting public safety are generally upheld by the courts.
• Injunctions require a clear legal right. To obtain an injunction, a party must prove both a right to be protected and that the acts complained of violate that right.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.