Uber QCRTC TRO

Below is an official comment from Uber Philippines about the recent TRO issued by QCRTC.

 

Uber is aware of a decision issued earlier today by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court and is studying the implications of this decision upon Transport Network Vehicle Services performed by Uber partners. Uber was not a party to the proceedings that resulted in the court’s decision and plans to coordinate closely with the DOTC and LTFRB. Uber remains 100% committed to serving Filipino commuters and has confidence that the DOTC and LTFRB will continue working productively with Uber and other industry participants to issue all necessary permits under the prevailing regulations and assure the smooth operation of Transport Network Vehicle Services in Metro Manila and elsewhere in the Philippines. – Uber spokesperson

 

Official comment from Grab Car:

The TRO hasn’t been officially received by neither GrabCar nor the LTFRB. Until we receive the TRO, we will continue to operate as usual.

We are closely coordinating with the government and we are hopeful that we will get their support to be able to provide safe and convenient GrabCar rides in the country. Our commitment towards providing the highest quality of service remains. We will post updates here as soon as there are developments.

My own comment:

My own understanding is that the 20 day temporary restraining stops the approval or issuance of new permits under the Transportation Network Vehicle Service (TNVS) scheme for applicants who do not have a certificate of public convenience (CPC). As such, drivers who have already been approved and are on the road with Uber and Grab should not be affected.

If the court later decides that the TRO requested by STOP and GO (Pascual “Jun” Magno) was invalid, they’ll forfeit PHP 300,000.

 

Uber & Grab cars are still on the road

IMG_0803IMG_0804

 

TRO Document (This is a scan and includes typos)

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 217-QUEZON CITY

ANGAT TSUPER SAMAHAN NG MGA

TSUPER AT OPERATOR NG PILIPINAS

GENUINE ORGANIZATION TRANSPORT

COALITION (STOP & GO), INC. rep. by PASCUAL “JUN” MAGNO,

Petitioners,

– versus –                                                   CIVIL CASE NO. R-QZN-1S-OS2S9-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

  1. CABRERA Ill in his capacity as Executive Director of the Board,

Respondents.

This refers to a Petition for Injunction with Application for the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction filed by petition Angat Tsuper Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas Genuine Organzation 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 of the LTFRB Board; and, Atty. Roberto P. Cabrera Ill 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 national 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. 016-2014 as shown by a Secretary’s Certificate marked as Exh. “A”. The members of the federation are concerned Filipino citizens, taxpayers, operators and drivers of public utility 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, 2010007 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 Transportation Network Vehicle Service (TNVS).

Authorities (PA) by the LTFRB; that this easy scheme/procedure of conducting a taxi business or vehicle for hire has resulted to the increase in sales of cars and other motor vehicles; that this could also be one of the reasons of the present heavy traffic in the metropolis; that the continued requests of the members and officers of the petitioner’s association for the issuance of CPCs/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 CPC-S have yet to be 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.

The petitioner also stated that on August 19, 2015, the LTFRB issued a Certificate of Accreditation to Ober System, Inc., and on August 27, 2015, the LTFRB issued a provisional Authority to Uber 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, 201517 and 2015-18 implementing it in order to Stop TNVS vehicles owned and operated by UBE-R 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 Act) which provides that “no public service shall operate in the Philippines without possessing a valid and subsisting certificate from the Public Service Commission known as Certificate of Public Convenience”;

Uber have now reached more than 2,900 per Philippine Daily Inquirer’s news article containing the statement of LTFRB Chairmain Winston Ginez; that the effects Of the implementation of DOTC DO No. 2015-11 and the implementing LTFRB Memorandum Circulars resulted to the decrease in the income of taxi drivers by php600.OO a day since their net earnings is from PhP1,200.oo to phP1,500.oo, and their net income is now around phP600.OO a day only, while the drivers of UV Express now earn only phP1,200.OO, instead of PhP2,500.OO to PhP3,OOO.OO, with a reduction of phP600.OO 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 is the existence today Of heavy and chaotic traffic situation in the National Capital Region brought about by the more than 2,900 up to 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 now especially along EDSA and main thoroughfares; that the member- Sol drivers Of taxi 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. 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, Ill in his capacity as Executive Director of the LTFRB Board, through counsel, filed their Comment/Opposition (TO the Issuance Of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ Of Preliminary Injunction) states, among others: that there  is no actual case or controversy such that DOTC DO No. 2015-11 and the four LTFRB.

Have now reached more than 2,900 per Philippine Daily Inquirer’s article containing the statement of LTFRB Chairman Winston Ginez•, that the effects Of the implementation of DOTC DO No. 2015-11 and the implementing LTFRB Memorandum Circulars resulted to the decrease in the income Of taxi drivers by PhP600.OO a day since their net earnings is from PhPI,200.OO to PhPl,500.OO, and their net income is row around PhP600.OO a day only, while the drivers of UV Express now earn only PHP 1,200.00 instead of PhP2,500.OO to PhP3,000.OO. with a reduction of PhP600.OO 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 is the existence today of heavy and chaotic traffic situation in the National Capital Region brought about by the more than 2,900 up to 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 drivers of taxi 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. 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, Ill in his capacity as Executive Director of the LTFRB Board, through counsel, filed their Comment/Opposition (TO the Issuance Of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ Of Preliminary Injunction) states, among others: that there is no actual case or control such that DOTC DO NO. 2015-11 and the four LTFRB

Subsequently, 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 court admitted them subject to the court’s appreciation of its probative value.
The rule pertinent to the resolution Of issue as to whether or not a TRO be granted to the applicant-movant 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, and the whole or part Of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act Or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring 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, lamely: (a) the invasion Of right sought to be protected is material Od substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is dear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for writ to prevent serious/damage.

Based on the initial findings after a preliminary assessment of the evidences and arguments presented by the parties, the court. at this stage 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 a 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 publt utility vehicles their vested rights are affected by the issuance of provisional authorities to TNVS-TNC vehicles plying the routes of Metro Manila.

Likewise, petitioner has demonstrated that there is extreme urgency to issue TRO 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 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 petitioner restraining respondents Department Transportation and Communications represented by 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 Enrite Inton, Jr. Emr. Ronaøo Corpus in their capacity as Members of the LTFRB and Atty. Roberto P. Cabrera, Ill in his capacity as Executive Director of LTFRB Board. and au persons or representatives in behalves from continuing the implementation and enforcement of DOTC Department Order No. 2015-11, LTFRB Memorandum Circulars Nos. 2015-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2015-18 and other issuances relative thereto which include the stopping of accepting, processing and approving of applications of motor vehicles and public utility vehicles accredited and belonging to TNVS and under the command and operation of TNC for a period of Twenty (2) days effective from date of receipt hereof.

The petitioner is required to post a bond in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (PHP300,00.00) Pesos, either in cash or surety, for payment to the respondents sought to be restrained as damages which they may sustain if the court should finally decide that the petitioner is no entitled to a Temporary Retraining Order.

The hearing of the petitioners application for preliminary injunction is set on December 8, 2015 at 8:30 in the morning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *