The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling that the imposition and collection of a PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee by Commonwealth Transport Services and Development Cooperative (COMMTRANSDECO) was an invalid exercise of police power. The Court directed COMMTRANSDECO and the Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal to stop collecting the fee and ordered COMMTRANSDECO to pay jeepney driver Gil L. Teves, Jr. PHP 150,000.00 in temperate damages.
The Case
On October 19, 2010, Teves filed a Complaint for Damages and Injunction with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order against COMMTRANSDECO and the Municipality of San Mateo, assailing the imposition of a PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee at the common terminal of Barangay Maly, San Mateo, Rizal.
Teves is the driver of a jeepney plying the route of Barangay Maly, San Mateo, Rizal to Philcoa, Quezon City via Constitutional Road and vice versa. The jeepney operator, Rosita Tabon, holds a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) for the route issued by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board.
On January 9, 2008, the Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Mateo issued Resolution No. 2008-001, identifying an open space to serve as a common terminal for members of COMMTRANSDECO plying the Barangay Maly-Philcoa route. On January 27, 2008, Teves and some 80 jeepney drivers signed a petition opposing the terminal. Despite the opposition, Ordinance No. 2008-004, dated February 18, 2008, was passed. The Ordinance did not provide for the collection of the PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee, but COMMTRANSDECO and the Municipality collected it starting April 2008.
The Regional Trial Court of San Mateo (Branch 77), in its Decision dated April 21, 2017, dismissed the Complaint, ruling that Ordinance No. 2008-004 was a valid exercise of police power under the General Welfare Clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. Teves appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC and later, in its Amended Decision, awarded him PHP 150,000.00 in temperate damages.
The Issue
Whether the imposition and collection of the PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee by COMMTRANSDECO constituted a valid exercise of police power.
The Ruling
The Court held that the CA correctly ruled that the imposition and collection of the PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee by COMMTRANSDECO is an invalid exercise of police power and must be struck down.
The dispositive portion states: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision, dated April 26, 2019, and the Amended Decision, dated December 7, 2020 of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 111206, are AFFIRMED."
The Court further directed COMMTRANSDECO and/or the Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal to cease and desist from imposing and collecting the PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee upon Teves and other jeepney drivers. It ordered COMMTRANSDECO to pay Teves PHP 150,000.00 in temperate damages, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the Decision until fully paid.
By the Numbers
- PHP 10.00 — the per trip terminal fee assailed
- PHP 150,000.00 — temperate damages ordered paid to Teves
- 6% per annum — interest rate from finality of the Decision until fully paid
- PHP 200.00 — alleged daily loss of income from April 2008 to January 2017
- PHP 500.00 — fine for trip-cutting
- 30% — portion of Teves's daily earnings represented by the fee
- October 19, 2010 — date the Complaint was filed
- February 18, 2008 — date of Ordinance No. 2008-004
- G.R. No. 254653
The Court's Reasoning
The Court found that the imposition and collection of the PHP 10.00 per trip terminal fee was neither authorized by the Ordinance nor reasonably necessary to achieve its objective. The system allowed jeepney drivers to obtain ticket stubs at the municipal hall, located three kilometers away from the common terminal, without completing their prescribed routes, thereby facilitating rather than deterring trip-cutting. The fee failed the reasonable-necessity test because the scheme was misaligned with, and in fact undermined, the Ordinance's stated purpose.
The Court adopted the CA finding that the fee was unduly oppressive and arbitrary, representing 30% of Teves's daily earnings. COMMTRANSDECO and the Municipality failed to show how the fee was determined or whether it was proportionate to the costs of operating and maintaining the common terminal. The lack of transparency and justification rendered its imposition arbitrary and oppressive.
Addressing COMMTRANSDECO's argument that Section 33(g) of the Ordinance authorized the fee, the Court held that the provision merely states that expenses for operating the common terminal shall be sourced from the total collection of terminal fees, and does not expressly authorize the imposition of a PHP 10.00 per trip fee. On the argument that the Ordinance's validity was raised for the first time on appeal, the Court noted that the CA did not rule on the Ordinance's validity but assessed whether the fee was a valid exercise of police power.
On damages, the Court explained that temperate damages may be recovered when one has suffered some pecuniary loss even if its amount cannot be determined with exact certainty. Since it is not customary for Public Utility Jeepneys to issue receipts, the amount of Teves's loss could not be proved with certainty, but the fact of loss was established. The Court found the PHP 150,000.00 award just and reasonable.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 254653, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.