CASE : LTFRB v. Hon.

Carlos Valenzuela of the RTC

DOCTRINE: if there is no clear and unmistakable right to be protected that exists

in favor of the applicant, then a writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued.

FACTS :

1. 🛵 2016 : DBDOYC Inc. ( DBDOYC/Angkas company) brought Angkas

( Ride hailing service) to the Philippines. But, the problem was DBDOYC did
not comply with the rules set by the LTFRB ( Land Transportation Franchising
and Regulatory Board) by doing the following :
A. (A-💳 )Not having the company accredited as a TNC ( Transport
Network Company)
B. ( 📜 ) Not having the Angkas driver obtain a certificate of public
convenience for providing a public service as a common carrier.

2. Reason for non-compliance of DBDOYC was that they contended the

following:
A. 📲 that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the LTFRB because
they are not a company that provides transportation services to the
public. Rather they are a merely a tech company that matches
motorcycle drivers to private passengers.

- Actually they are covered under DO 2015-11 as a Transportation network

company.

B. 👩💼 That their drivers don’t need a Certificate of Public Convenience

because they do not provide a public service as the drivers are
private contractors.
3. 📆 📸 2017: LTFRB had a press release to inform the public the due to the
non-compliance of DBDOYC of the rules set by the LTFRB they cannot
legally operate. ——— DBDOYC continued to operate nonetheless.
4. 👨⚖ 2018: DBDOYC filed a case in court for declaratory relief with an
Application for the issuance of a TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
against the LTFRB. The reason was to Prevent the LTFRB from obstructing
their business operations . ——— RTC granted and issue the writ or
preliminary injunction. ( Case Incapable of pecuniary estimation)
5. 🧠 RTC’s Reason for granting:
 A. There was a clear and unmistakable right which was the constitutional
right to liberty to conduct DBDOYC’s business.
B. There would be grave and irreparable damage caused to DBDOYC if the
writ would not be grant, as business operation could be hampered or
stopped.
6. ⚖ The Case at Bar: The LTFRB filed a petition for certiorari against the order
of the RTC granting the Preliminary injunction. The LTFRB alleges that were
was grave abuse of discretion in the granting of the writ.

ISSUES :

1. WON there was GADALEJ (Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

execs of Jurisdiction) on the part of the RTC judge in granting the writ of ?
2. Why did DBDOYC not have a clear and unmistakeable right ?

RULING : RTC’s issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is annulled as here

was no clear and unmistakable right. The RTC is mandated to conduct further
proceedings on the main case for declaratory relief.

1. Yes, there was GADALEJ because DBDOYC did not have a clear and
unmistakable right. Which is one of the requirements of the grant of the writ
or preliminary injunction together with an urgent necessity such as
irreparable damage.

- The threat or irreparable damage is not enough if there is no proof

of a clear and unmistakable right. ( Spouses Nisce v. Equitable PCI
Bank, Inc. )

2. Grounds of the grant of the writ of preliminary Injunction:

1. ✅ There must be a clear and unmistakable right to be protected.

2. ➡ The right is directly threatened by the act sought to be enjoined
3. 🧟 The invasion of the right is 👚 material and substantial.
4. ( 🕗 🗻 🍚 - 💔 ) There is an urgent or paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious(black) and irreparable damage.

3. DBDOYC did not have a clear and unmistakable right, but a unclear and
doubtful one, due to the following reasons:
 A. Under RA 4136: Land transportation law: Sec 7. States that private
motor cycles🛵 shall not be used for hire 🙋 under any circumstances
and shall not be used to solicit, accept, or be used to transport
passengers or freight for pay. ( meaning they cannot be used as common
carriers)
B.
C. Under the inherent powers of the state: Police power- The state has the
inherent power to regulate or restrain the use of liberty and property for
the general welfare of the people. This means the state has the power
through the LTFRB to regulate the liberty of DBDOYC to conduct its
business so long as it is for the general welfare of the people. This is
allowed as in this case public transportation is a public concern.
D. Under the Civil Code: Common carriers are those persons that are
engaged in the business of transporting passengers and or goods on
land water or air for compensation. In the Civil code it does not
distinguish how often you engage in this business, so long as you
transport passengers and or goods for compensation.

- The Angkas drivers are a common carrier and not a private contractor
because they offer their service indiscriminately to the public. As they
do not specifically choose who their clients will be and the price of the
transaction is already fix by DBDOYC.

E. Under the Public Service act, Common carriers are considered a public
service which requires them to obtain a certificate of public
convenience. Hence, the angkas drivers need to obtain a certificate of
public convenience if they wish to continue providing their shrives as a
common carrier.

IN REALITY:
1. Angkas in Manila has already been grated by the LTFRB a franchise or it has
already been accredited.
CASE 2 :

FACTS :
ISSUES :
RULING :
NOTES :

CASE 3 :

FACTS :
ISSUES :
RULING :
NOTES :

CASE 4 :

FACTS :
ISSUES :
RULING :
NOTES :