Taxicab Operators vs.

Board of Transportation
Taxicab Operators vs. Board of Transportation
G.R. No. L-59234. September 30, 1982.

Facts:
Petitioners who are taxicab operators assail the constitutionality of Memorandum Circular No. 77-42
issued by the Board of Transportation (BOT) providing for the phasing out and replacement of old and
dilapidated taxicabs; as well as Implementing Circular No. 52 issued pursuant thereto by the Bureau of
Land Transportation (BLT) instructing personnel of the BLT within the National Capital Region to
implement the said BOT Circular, and formulating a schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be allowed and
accepted for registration as public conveyances.

Petitioners allege that the questioned Circulars did not afford them procedural and substantive due
process, equal protection of the law, and protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification and
standard. Among others, they question the issuance of the Circulars without first calling them to a
conference or requiring them to submit position papers or other documents enforceability thereof only in
Metro Manila; and their being applicable only to taxicabs and not to other transportation services.

Issues:
Whether or not the constitutional guarantee of due process was denied to the taxicab operators and/or
other persons affected by the assailed Circular No. 52.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that there was no denial of due process since calling the taxicab operators or
persons who may be affected by the questioned Circulars to a conference or requiring them to submit
position papers or other documents is only one of the options open to the BOT which is given wide
discretionary authority under P.D. No. 101; and fixing a six- year ceiling for a car to be operated as
taxicab is a reasonable standard adopted to apply to all vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly.

The Court also ruled that neither has the equal protection clause been violated by initially enforcing the
Circulars only in Metro Manila since it is of common knowledge that taxicabs in this city, compared to
those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use, thus making for a
substantial distinction; nor by non-application of the Circulars to other transportation services because the
said Circulars satisfy the criteria required under the equal protection clause, which is the uniform
operation by legal means so that all persons under identical or similar circumstances would be accorded
the same treatment both in privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed.

It is clear from the provision of Section 2 of P.D. 101 aforequoted, that the leeway accorded the Board
gives it a wide range of choice in gathering necessary information or data in the formulation of any policy,
plan or program. It is not mandatory that it should first call a conference or require the submission of
position papers or other documents from operators or persons who maybe affected, this being only one of
the options open to the Board, which is given wide discretionary authority. Petitioners cannot justifiably
claim, therefore, that they were deprived of procedural due process. Neither can they state with certainty
that public respondents had not availed of other sources of inquiry prior to issuing the challenged
Circulars. Operators of public conveyances are not the only primary sources of the data and information
that may be desired by the BOT.