City asks court to dismiss civil case from jeepney groups

CEBU, Philippines - Citing there is no irreparable injury on the part of the transport groups who were banned from entering F.Llamas and Sabellano Streets, the City of Cebu is seeking the dismissal of the civil case for injunction filed against them.

 “Routes 44-A and 43-D were already prohibited from entering F.Llamas Street for several years already. Apparently, there is no sense of urgency nor great injury suffered judging by plaintiffs’ inaction for several years,” the city’s answer to the complaint reads.

 The defendants City of Cebu , Mayor Michael Rama, Cebu City Traffic Operations Management (CITOM) and Atty. Rafael Christopher Yap said the creation of the City Ordinance (CO) 1663 was to regulate the flow of traffic.

 CO 1663 amended the City Ordinance No. 1628 otherwise known as an ordinance regulating the operation of public utility motor vehicles having gross weights of 1,800 kilograms or below.

 The CITOM installed a “no sign” entry at the junction of N. Bacalso Avenue and Macopa Street to prevent “a huge volume of vehicles traversing F. Llamas Street which is a busy street.”

 Under the law, the City of Cebu is empowered to regulate the flow of traffic within its territorial jurisdiction under its charter (RA 3857) and by the Local Government Code of 1991.

 Earlier, the Cebu South Transport Operators and Drivers Association (Cestoda) filed a civil case against the defendants for prohibiting jeepney drivers plying route number 43D from entering the said streets in violation of their franchise route.

 The transport group claimed that they were forced to do trip-cutting.

 However, in its answer, the defendants said they are not forcing the plaintiffs to commit trip-cutting.

  “The enforcement of traffic regulations cannot be deemed to be interference of plaintiffs’ trade/occupation, neither does the same tantamount to forcing the plaintiffs to commit trip-cutting,” they said.

 They added that the Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) which the plaintiff mentioned as one of their grounds in filing the instant case is not a guarantee because under the said certificate, the operator shall likewise “observe and comply strictly with the Rules and Regulations for all Public Service in conformity with, among others, Municipal and City Ordinances.”

 To support their claims, the defendants cited Supreme Court decision Loque vs. Villegas promulgated dated November 28, 1969 stating “…the very nature of CPCs is at cross purposes with the concept of vested rights. A CPC constitutes neither a franchise nor a contract, confers no property right, and is a mere license or privilege.”

 With that jurisprudence the defendants said the plaintiff cannot claim of having “clear right and duty to operate the full length of routes” because they do not “acquire a property right” in the route.

 Moreover, the defendants claimed that the issue of “prejudice” on the part of the riding public is nonsense because 73 tricycles are operating along the Sabellano and F. Llamas Streets based on the record of the CITOM.

 Judge Douglas Marigomen of Regional Trial Court Branch 5 earlier denied the TRO asked by the Cestoda, citing that the City Government has the power to create ordinances.  (FREEMAN)