THE Court of Appeals (CA) has junked the petition filed by an organization of taxi drivers seeking to stop the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) from implementing its 2016 decision lowering the flag-down rate of taxi fare from P40 to P30.
In a five-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the CA’s Thirteenth Division held that the petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed by the Fair Organization of Taxi Drivers of the Philippines Inc. and Alliance of National Urban Poor Organizations Assembly Inc. should be dismissed for failure to comply with its directive to correct the defects in the petition.
The CA noted that the assailed consolidated decision issued by the LTFRB on March 8, 2016, attached to the petition is a mere photocopy of the supposed certified true copy of the decision; petitioners failed to attach copies of the pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent to the petition; and petitioners failed to state what government-issued IDs were presented before the notary public, who notarized the verification and certification on nonforum shopping as valid proof of their identities.
“To date, however, the petitioners have not submitted their compliance to remedy the foregoing defects despite having been required to do so twice,” the CA said.
In its March 2016 decision, the LTFRB granted the petition filed by Rep. Manuel Iway of the First District of Negros Oriental, seeking to adjust taxi-fare rates due to the continued drop of fuel prices.
The LTFRB set the permanent flag-down rate of taxi fare nationwide, except for Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), to P30 and P3.50 for every succeeding 500 meters and P3.50 for the waiting time per 90 seconds.
On the other hand, the permanent flag-down rate of airport taxis nationwide, except for CAR, to P30 and P2 for every succeeding 400 meters and P2 for the waiting time per 60 seconds.
The permanent flag-down rate of taxis in CAR was set to P30 and P2 for every succeeding 400 meters and P2 for the waiting time per 60 seconds.
The CA held that, under Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the requirements for filing a petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
“In the instant case, petitioners did not offer any explanation at all as to why, to date, they have not complied with the resolutions dated May 4, 2016, and May 8, 2017. Thus, due to petitioners’ repeated failure to comply with the foregoing directives, the Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the petition,” the CA declared.
In opposing the decrease in taxi fare, operators and drivers cited the increasing price of spare parts , labor, cost of living, basic commodities and other incidental costs for the operation of taxi services.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Ramon Garcia and Edwin Sorongon.