Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines vs DOLE
G.R. No. 202275, July 17, 2018,
Facts:
To ensure road safety and address the risk-taking behavior of bus drivers as its declared objective, the LTFRB issued Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 requiring “all Public Utility Bus (PUB) operators to secure Labor Standards Compliance Certificates” under pain of revocation of their existing certificates of public convenience or denial of an application for a new certificate.
On January 9, 2012, the DOLE issued Department Order No. 118-12, elaborating on the part-fixed-part-performance-based compensation system referred to in the LTFRB Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001. Department Order No. 118-12, among others, provides for the rule for computing the fixed and the performance-based component of a public utility bus driver’s or conductor’s wage.
On January 28, 2012, Atty. Emmanuel A. Mahipus, on behalf of the Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, and other bus companies, wrote to then Secretary of Labor and Employment Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz, requesting to defer the implementation of Department Order No. 118-12. The request, however, was not acted upon.
On February 27, 2012 and in compliance with Rule III, Section 3 of Department Order No. 118-12, the National Wages and Productivity Commission issued NWPC Guidelines No. 1 to serve as Operational Guidelines on Department Order No. 118-12. NWPC Guidelines No. 1 suggested formulae for computing the fixed-based and the performance-based components of a bus driver’s or conductor’s wage.
On July 4, 2012, petitioners filed before this Court a Petition with Urgent Request for Immediate Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,4 impleading the DOLE and the LTFRB as respondents. They pray that this Court enjoin the implementation of Department Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 for being violative of their right to due process, equal protection, and non-impairment of obligation of contracts.
Respondents counter that petitioners have no legal standing to file the present Petition considering that Department Order No. 118-12 and Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001 are directed against bus operators, not against associations of bus operators such as petitioners. They add that petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy courts in directly filing their Petition before this Court. For these reasons, respondents pray for the dismissal of the Petition.
Issue 1:
Whether or not petitioners Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Southern Luzon Bus Operators Association, Inc., Inter City Bus Operators Association, and City of San Jose Del Monte Bus Operators Association have legal standing to sue and whether or not this case falls under any of the exceptions to the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
Held:
No; this Court dismisses the Petition. Petitioners fail to respect the doctrine of hierarchy of courts by directly invoking this Court's jurisdiction without any special reason. They fail to present an actual controversy ripe for adjudication and do not even have the requisite standing to file this case.
The issues raised in this Petition are not justiciable. The Petition presents no actual case or controversy. As a rule, "the constitutionality of a statute will be passed on only if, and to the extent that, it is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the protection of the rights of the parties concerned." A controversy is said to be justiciable if: first, there is an actual case or controversy involving legal rights that are capable of judicial determination; second, the parties raising the issue must have standing or locus standi to raise the constitutional issue; third, the constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and fourth, resolving the constitutionality must be essential to the disposition of the case.
An actual case or controversy is "one which involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial resolution." A case is justiciable if the issues presented are "definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests." The conflict must be ripe for judicial determination, not conjectural or anticipatory; otherwise, this Court's decision will amount to an advisory opinion concerning legislative or executive action.
Like any rule, the rule on legal standing has exceptions. This Court has taken cognizance of petitions filed by those who have no personal or substantial interest in the challenged governmental act but whose petitions nevertheless raise "constitutional issue[s] of critical significance." This Court summarized the requirements for granting legal standing to "nontraditional suitors" in Funa v. Villar, thus:
1.) For taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
2.) For voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question;
3.) For concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and
4.) For legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes their prerogatives as legislators.
5.) Third-party standing. Under this concept, actions may be brought on behalf of third parties provided the following criteria are met: first, "the [party bringing suit] must have suffered an 'injury-in-fact,' thus giving him or her a 'sufficiently concrete interest' in the outcome of the issue in dispute"; second, "the party must have a close relation to the third party"; and third, "there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests."
6.) Associations were likewise allowed to sue on behalf of their members - An association has standing to file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its members are affected by the action. An organization has standing to assert the concerns of its constituents.
As declared at the outset, petitioners in this case do not have standing to bring this suit. As associations, they failed to establish who their members are and if these members allowed them to sue on their behalf. While alleging that they are composed of public utility bus operators who will be directly injured by the implementation of Department Order No. 118- 12 and Memorandum Circular No. 2012-001, petitioners did not present any proof, such as board resolutions of their alleged members or their own articles of incorporation authorizing them to act as their members' representatives in suits involving their members' individual rights.
Some of the petitioners here are not even persons or entitles authorized by law or by the Rules allowed to file a suit in court. As intervenor MMDA sufficiently demonstrated, petitioners Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Southern Luzon Bus Operators Association, Inc., and Inter City Bus Operators Association, Inc. had their certificates of incorporation revoked by the Securities and Exchange Commission for failure to submit the required general information sheets and financial statements for the years 1996 to 2003. With their certificates of incorporation revoked, petitioners Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines, Southern Luzon Bus Operators Association, Inc., and Inter City Bus Operators Association, Inc. have no corporate existence. They have no capacity to exercise any corporate power, specifically, the power to sue in their respective corporate names.