Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines v. Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 202275, [July 17, 2018]
ISSUE(S):
·
Tension between the Bill of Rights and
administrative regulation
·
whether or not this case falls under any of the exceptions
to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts;
·
Third, whether or not the DOLE Department Order
No. 118-12 and the LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 deprive public
utility bus operators of their right to due process of law;
·
Fourth, whether or not the DOLE Department Order
No. 118-12 and the LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 impair public utility
bus operators' right to non-impairment of obligation of contracts; and
·
Finally, whether or not the DOLE Department
Order No. 118-12 and the LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 deny public
utility bus operators of their right to equal protection of the laws.
FACTS:
To ensure road safety and address the risk-taking behavior
of bus drivers, the LTFRB issued Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 on January 4,
2012, requiring "all Public Utility Bus (PUB) operators to secure Labor
Standards Compliance Certificates" under pain of revocation of their
existing certificates of public convenience or denial of an application for a
new certificate.
Five days later, the
DOLE issued Department Order No. 118-12, elaborating on the
part-fixed-part-performance-based compensation system referred to in the LTFRB
Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001. Department Order No. 118-12, among others,
provides for the rule for computing the fixed and the performance-based
component of a public utility bus driver's or conductor's wage.
On January 28, 2012, Atty. Emmanuel A. Mahipus, on behalf of
the Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Integrated Metro
Manila Bus Operators Association, Inter City Bus Operators Association, the
City of San Jose Del Monte Bus Operators Association, and Pro-Bus, wrote to
then Secretary of Labor and Employment Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, requesting
to defer the implementation of Department Order No. 118-12. The request,
however, was not acted upon.
Meanwhile, on February 27, 2012 and in compliance with Rule
III, Section 3 of Department Order No. 118-12, the National Wages and
Productivity Commission issued NWPC Guidelines No. 1 to serve as Operational
Guidelines on Department Order No. 118-12. NWPC Guidelines No. 1 suggested
formulae for computing the fixed-based and the performance-based components of
a bus driver's or conductor's wage.
On July 4, 2012, petitioners filed before the Court a Petition
with Urgent Request for Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, impleading the DOLE and the LTFRB as
respondents. They pray that this Court enjoin the implementation of Department
Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 for being violative of
their right to due process, equal protection, and non impairment of obligation
of contracts. Particularly with respect to DO No. 118-12, its provisions on the
payment of part-fixed-part performance based wage allegedly impair petitioners’
obligations under their existing collective bargaining agreements where they
agreed with their bus drivers and conductor on a commission or boundary basis. They
contend that Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 further requires compliance with
Department Order No. 118-12 under threat of revocation of their franchises,
which allegedly deprive petitioners of the capital they invested in their
businesses in violation of their right to due process of law.
Petitioners add that the initial implementation of
Department Order No. 118-12 within Metro Manila allegedly creates an arbitrary
distinction between bus operators operating in Metro Manila and those operating
outside of Metro Manila, in violation of petitioners' right to equal protection
of the laws.
Respondents counter that petitioners have no legal standing
to file the present Petition considering that Department Order No. 118-12 and
Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 are directed against bus operators, not
against associations of bus operators such as petitioners. They add that
petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy courts in directly filing their
Petition before this Court. For these reasons, respondents pray for the
dismissal of the Petition.
On the constitutional issues raised by petitioners,
respondents contend that Department Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum Circular
No. 2012-001 are valid issuances promulgated by the DOLE and the LTFRB in the
exercise of their quasi-legislative powers.
Further, they argue that Department Order No. 118-12 and
Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 do not violate public utility bus operators'
rights to non-impairment of obligation of contracts, due process of law, and
equal protection of the laws for the following reasons:
First, Department Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum Circular
No. 2012-001 were issued "[to promote and protect] the welfare of the
public utility bus drivers and conductors" and "(to ensure] road
safety" by imposing a wage system where public utility bus drivers do not have
to compete with one another and drive recklessly for additional income.
Department Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 are social
legislations and police power measures to which petitioners' right against
impairment of obligation of contracts must yield;
Second, certificates of public convenience are not property
and are always subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal. Therefore, public
utility bus operators cannot argue that they were deprived of their property
without due process of law when the LTFRB required further compliance with
Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 for bus operators to retain their franchises;
and
Finally, Department Order No. 118-12 does not violate Metro
Manila public utility bus operators' right to equal protection of the laws
since it applies to all public utility bus operators in the country.
RULING:
The Constitution vests in this Court and such lower courts
as may be established by law the power to "declare executive and
legislative acts void if violative of the Constitution."
Administrative actions reviewable by the Court, therefore,
may either be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. As the name implies,
quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power of an administrative agency
to make rules and regulations that have the force and effect of law so long as
they are issued "within the confines of the granting statute." The
enabling law must be complete, with sufficient standards to guide the
administrative agency in exercising its rule-making power. As an exception to
the rule on non delegation of legislative power, administrative rules and
regulations must be "germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and
be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by
law."
On the other hand, quasi-judicial or administrative
adjudicatory power is "the power to hear and determine questions of fact
to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with
the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the
same law."
Determining whether the act under review is
quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial is necessary in determining when judicial
remedies may properly be availed of Rules issued in the exercise of an
administrative agency's quasi-legislative power may be taken cognizance of by
courts on the first instance as part of their judicial power.
However, in cases involving quasi-judicial acts, Congress
may require certain quasi-judicial agencies to first take cognizance of the
case before resort to judicial remedies may be allowed. This is to take
advantage of the special technical expertise possessed by administrative
agencies.
Comments
Post a Comment