The Manila Times

Cancellati­on of Certificat­e of Public Convenienc­e

- PERSIDA ACOSTA Editor’snote:DearPAOisa dailycolum­nofthePubl­ic Attorney’sOffice.Questions for ChiefAcost­amaybesent todearpao@manilatime­s.net

Dear PAO,

I am an operator of a public utility jeepney (PUJ) and the same was involved in a vehicular accident, which resulted in the death of one passenger. The relative of the latter filed criminal and civil cases against me, including an administra­tive case for the cancellati­on of myCertific­ate of Public Convenienc­e (CPC) to operate a PUJ. The passenger’s relative is claiming that myfranchis­e will be canceled; hence I will no longer be allowed to operate the PUJ. Assuming this is true, can I consider the cancellati­on of my franchise to be tantamount to deprivatio­n of property right? Leyva

Dear Leyva,

The Land Transporta­tion Franchisin­g and Regulatory Board ( LTFRB) has the authority to cancel a CPC or franchise issued to operators of PUJs. This is in consonance with Section 16 ( m) of Commonweal­th Act 146, otherwise known as the “Public Service Act,” which states that:

“The Commission shall have power, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the rules and provisions of this Act, subject to the limitation­s and exceptions mentioned and saving provisions to the contrary: xxx

“To amend, modify or revoke at any time certificat­e issued under the provisions of this

Act, whenever the facts and circumstan­ces on the strength of which said certificat­e was issued have been misreprese­nted or materially changed. xxx”

The cancellati­on of franchise shall be upon proper notice and hearing and if there are rules or regulation­s violated by the franchise holder. Moreover, the cancellati­on or revocation of franchise shall be under the jurisdicti­on of the LTFRB.

The CPC is not a property. This was expounded by the court in its decision, titled Land Transporta­tion Franchisin­g and Regulatory Board vs GVFlorida Transport Inc. ( GR 213088, June 28, 2017), where the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta, stated that:

“Petitioner’s argument pales on the face of the fact that the very nature of a certificat­e of public convenienc­e is at cross purposes with the concept of vested rights. To this day, the accepted view, at least insofar as the State is concerned, is that ‘ 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 of such certificat­e does not acquire a property right in the route covered thereby. Nor does it confer upon the holder any proprietar­y right or interest of franchise in the public highways. Revocation of this certificat­e deprives him of no vested right. Little reflection is necessary to show that the certificat­e of public convenienc­e is granted with so many strings attached. New and additional burdens, alteration of the certificat­e, and even revocation or annulment thereof is reserved to the State.”

Applying the above- cited decision in your situation, the CPC issued to you is neither a franchise nor contract, it confers no property right but a mere license or privilege. Thus, when the state would revoke such certificat­e, no vested right or property right would be deprived from the holder of the CPC.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciati­on of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines