CASE 23 Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr. GR No.

115381, December 23, 1994 PRINCIPLE: The requirement of locus standi is found in the definition of judicial power. Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution . FACTS: 1. June 26, 1990 The Memorandum Circular No. 90-395 issued by Secretary of DOTC to LTFRB Chairmain, Remedios A.S. Fernando allowed the provincial bus operators to charge passengers rates within a range of 15% above and below the LTFRB official rate for one year. 2. December 25, 1990 respondents applied for rate increase where an across the board costs 0.085 centavos per km for all types of provincial buses. But the next day they decreased the applied proposed fare to an across-theboard increase of 0.065 centavos per km for ordinary buses due to the drop in the expected price of diesel. 3. The application was opposed by the Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc and Perla Bautista claiming that it is unreasonable and such application contained no allegation on the rate of return of the proposed increase in rate. 4. December 14, 1990 LTFRB rendered the grant of the fare rate increase with its schedule of fares on straight computation method. 5. March 30, 1992 Department Order No. 92-587 was issued by the Sec. of the Department of Transportation and Communications, Pete Nicomedes Prado which defined the policy framework on the regulation of transportation services. 6. October 9, 1992 respondent Gracia issued a memorandum to LTFRB Acting Chairman regarding action on the adoption of rules and procedure in the implementation of Dept. Order No. 92-587 that laid down deregulation and other liberalization policies for the transporter section wherein such procedure is a pre-requisite to the approval of the Economic Integration Loan from the World Bank 7. February 27, 1993 LTFRB promulgated the implementation of DOTCs Dept Order No. 92-587. 8. PBOAP, availing itself of the deregulation policy of the DOTC allowing provincial bus operators to collect plus 20% and minus 25% of the prescribed fare without first having filed a petition for the purpose and without the benefit of a public hearing, announced a fare increase of twenty (20%) percent of the existing fares which took effect March 16, 1994. 9. March 16, 1994 KMU opposed in a petition the upward adjustment of bus fares which was denied by LTFRB.

10.A TRO was filed by KMU to the Court which was granted and had an effect of roll backs in provincial bus fares to the duly authorized fare of the LTFRB. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has legal standing to sue or has no real interest in the case at beanch and in obtaining the reliefs prayed for. RULING: YES. The Court declared that KMU has the legal standing(locus standi) to sue sincethe requirement for locus standi was defined in the judicial power under Sec. 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution as follows: xxx xxx xxx Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The Court also mentioned the case of Lamb v. Phipps where it is ruled that judicial power is the power to hear and decide causes pending between parties who have the right to sue in the courts of law and equity. Corollary to this provision is the principle of locus standi of a party litigant. One who is directly affected by and whose interest is immediate and substantial in the controversy has the standing to sue. The rule therefore requires that a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable decision so as to warrant an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and to justify the exercise of the court's remedial powers in his behalf. In the present case the Courts sees that the parties have suffered and continue to suffer with the memoranda, circulars and/or orders implemented. Members of KMU have been affected by the fare hikes upon avail of the use of buses, trains, jeepneys everyday. As commuters their rights should be protected not neglected or ignored. (Case is in connection to ruling in Case 26 of the Syllabus, Kilosbayan v. Guingona) DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the challenged administrative issuances and orders, namely: DOTC Department Order No. 92-587, LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 92-009, and the order dated March 24, 1994 issued by respondent LTFRB are hereby DECLARED contrary to law and invalid insofar as they affect provisions therein (a) delegating to provincial bus and jeepney operators the authority to increase or decrease the duly prescribed transportation fares; and (b) creating a presumption of public need for a service in favor of the applicant for a certificate of public convenience and placing the burden of proving that there is no need for the proposed service to the oppositor.

The Temporary Restraining Order issued on June 20, 1994 is hereby MADE PERMANENT insofar as it enjoined the bus fare rate increase granted under the provisions of the aforementioned administrative circulars, memoranda and/or orders declared invalid.