7/23/2019 055 Lucena Grand Central v JAC Digest
1/4
055 Lucena Grand Central v JAC
Facts:
Respondent, JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier operating buses
!ic! pl" various
routes to and #rom Lucena Cit", assailed, via a petition #or
pro!ibition andin$unction against t!e Cit" o# Lucena, its %a"or,
and t!e &angguniang'anlungsod o# Lucena be#ore t!e R(C
(!e" claim t!at Cit" )rdinance *os. +-+ and +/+as
unconstitutional on t!e
ground t!at, t!e same constituted an invalid exercise of police
power, anundue taking of private property,and a violation o# t!e
constitutionalprohibition against monopolies.
(!e Lucena Grand Central (erminal is t!e permanent common
terminal as t!is is
t!e entit" !ic! as given t!e eclusive #ranc!ise b" t!e
&angguniang'anglungsod under )rdinance *o. +-+o (!ese
ordinances, b" granting an eclusive #ranc!ise #or tent" 1ve
"ears,
reneable #or anot!er tent" 1ve "ears, to one entit" #or t!e
constructionand operation o# one common bus and $eepne" terminal
#acilit" in Lucena
Cit", to be located outside t!e cit" proper, ere professedly
aimedtowards alleviating the trac congestionalleged to !ave been
causedb" t!e eistence o# various bus and $eepne" terminals it!in
t!e cit".
R(C
o declared Cit" )rdinance *o. +-+ as valid:
inso#ar as t!e grant o# #ranc!ise to t!e Lucena Grand Central
(erminal,
Inc., to construct, 1nance, establis!, operate and maintain
commonbus2$eepne" terminal #acilit" in t!e Cit" o# Lucena.
o 34( declaring t!e provision o# &ec. 6c7 o# )rdinance *o.
+-+ , as illegal
and ultra vires because it contravenes t!e provisions o#
Republic Act *o.+0 6LGC7
to t!e e8ect t!at t!e Cit" Government s!all not grant an" t!ird
part"
an" privilege and9or concession to operate a bus, mini2bus
and9or$eepne" terminal, as illegal and ultra vires because it
contravenes t!eprovisions o# Republic Act *o. +0, ot!erise non as
(!e LocalGovernment Code.
1 Ordinance No. 1631[2] AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE LUCENA GRAND
CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC.,A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, FINANCE,
ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN A COMMON BUS-
JEEPNEY TERMINAL FACILITY IN THE CITY OF LUCENASECTION 4.
Responsibilities and Obligations of
the City Government of Lucena. During the existence of the
franchise, the City Government of Lucena shall have
the following responsibilities and obligations: xxx (c) It shall
not grant any third party any privilege and/or
concession to operate a bus, mini-bus and/or jeepney
terminal.
Ordinance No. 1778[3] AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ENTRANCE TO
THE CITY OF LUCENA OF
ALL BUSES, MINI-BUSES AND OUT-OF-TOWN PASSENGER JEEPNEYS AND FOR
THIS PURPOSE,
AMENDING ORDINACE NO. 1420, SERIES OF 1993, AND ORDINANCE NO.
1557, SERIES OF 1995 xxx
SECTION 1. The entrance to the City of Lucena of all buses,
mini-buses and out-of-town passenger jeepneys is
hereby regulated as follows: (a) All buses, mini-buses and
out-of-town passenger jeepneys shall be prohibited from
entering the city and are hereby directed to proceed to the
common terminal, for picking-up and/or dropping of their
passengers. (b) All temporary terminals in the City of Lucena
are hereby declared inoperable starting from the
effectivity of this ordinance.
7/23/2019 055 Lucena Grand Central v JAC Digest
3/4
)t!erise stated, t!ere must be a concurrence of a lawful
subject and lawful method.
s applied!o (!e uestioned ordinances !aving been enacted it! t!e
ob$ective o#
relieving tra;c congestion in t!e Cit" o# Lucena, t!e" involve
public interestarranting t!e inter#erence o# t!e &tate.
"he #rst requisite for the proper exercise of police power
is
thus present.o =it! t!e aim o# localiDing t!e source o# tra;c
congestion in t!e cit" to a
single location, t!e sub$ect ordinances pro!ibit t!e operation
o# all bus and$eepne" terminals it!in Lucena, including t!ose
alread" eisting, and allot!e operation o# onl" one common terminal
located outside t!e cit" proper,t!e #ranc!ise #or !ic! as granted
to petitioner. (!e common carrierspl"ing routes to and #rom Lucena
Cit" are thus compelled to close downtheir existing terminals and
use the facilities of petitioner.
o Citing @e la CruD v 'aras:
It cannot be said t!at suc! a seeping eercise o# a lamaing
poer
b" 3ocaue could uali#" under t!e term reasonable. (!e ob$ective
o##ostering public morals, a ort!" and desirable end can be
attained b"a measure t!at does not encompass too ide a 1eld.
Certainl" t!eordinance on its #ace is c!aracteriDed b"
overbreadth
(!e purpose soug!t to be ac!ieved could !ave been attained
by
reasonable restrictions rather than by an absolute prohibition.o
(!e ordinances assailed !erein are characteri$ed by
overbreadth.(!e"
go be"ond !at is reasonabl" necessar" to solve t!e tra;c
problem.Additionall", since t!e compulsor" use o# t!e terminal
operated b" petitionerould sub$ect t!e users t!ereo# to #ees,
rentals and c!arges, suc! measure isundul" oppressive, as correctl"
#ound b" t!e appellate court. %hat shouldhave been done was to
determine exactly where the problem lies
and then to stop it right there.o A due de#erence to t!e rig!ts
o# t!e individual t!us reuires a more care#ul
#ormulation o# solutions to societal problems.o 3us terminals
per se do not, !oever, impede or !elp impede t!e Eo o#
tra;c. I# terminals lac adeuate space suc! t!at bus drivers are
compelledto load and unload passengers on t!e streets instead o#
inside t!e terminals,then reasonable speci#cations for the si$e of
terminals could beinstituted, it! permits to operate t!e same
denied t!ose !ic! are unableto meet t!e speci1cations.
o Absent an" s!oing, na" allegation, t!at t!e terminals are
encroac!ing upon
public roads, t!e" are not obstacles. (!e buses !ic!
indiscriminatel" loadand unload passengers on t!e cit" streets are.
(!e poer t!en o# t!e
&angguniang 'anlungsod to pro!ibit encroac!ments and
obstacles does notetend to terminals.
o *eit!er are terminals public nuisances as petitioner argues.
For t!eir
operation is a legitimate business !ic!, b" itsel#, cannot be
said to bein$urious to t!e rig!ts o# propert", !ealt!, or com#ort
o# t!e communit". 3uteven assuming t!at terminals are nuisances due
to t!eir alleged indirecte8ects upon t!e Eo o# tra;c, at most t!e"
are nuisance per accidens, not
![Grap6[1] Jac](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/559cf5a11a28ab7e438b46f5/grap61-jac.jpg)
