8/17/2019 Case Digest (17) Arrow

1/2

 Judicial Review

(17) Arrow Transportation Corporation v. Board of Transportation and Sultan Rent-a-

Car

G.R. o. !-"#$%%. &1 'arc 1#7%.

ACTS

Bot petitioner and Sultan Rent-a-Car are do*estic corporations. Te for*er

as in is favor a certi+cate of pu,lic convenience to operate a pu,lic utilit ,us air-

conditioned-auto-truc service fro* Ce,u Cit to 'actan /nternational Airport and

vice-versa wit te use of twent (&0) units. Sultan Rent-a-Car +led a petition wit

te Board of Transportation for te issuance of a certi+cate of pu,lic convenience to

operate a si*ilar service on te sa*e line. i2t das later3 witout te re4uired

pu,lication3 te Board issued an order 2rantin2 it provisional per*it to operate sucauto-truc service on te line applied for. Tere was a *otion for reconsideration

and for te cancellation of suc provisional per*it +led ,ut witout awaitin2 +nal

action tereon3 tis petition was +led. Tis is te e5planation6 Tat petitioner as

not waited for te resolution of is 'otion for Reconsideration ,efore 2oin2 to tis

Court considerin2 tat te 4uestion involved erein is purel a le2al one3 aside fro*

te fact tat te issuance of te 8rder witout te Board avin2 ac4uired

 9urisdiction of te case et3 is patentl ille2al or was perfor*ed witout 9urisdiction.

As a preli*inar in9unction was liewise sou2t3 a earin2 was sceduled. /t

was cancelled. Te Court issued a resolution re4uirin2 respondents to +le an answer

and settin2 te earin2 on te *erits of te case. /n te answer su,*itted te facts

alle2ed were su,stantiall ad*itted. /t denied te alle2ation tat tere *ust ,e a

pu,lication ,efore a provisional per*it can ,e issued3 reference ,ein2 *ade to

:residential ;ecree o. 1013 wic autorieter or not te controvers is ripe for 9udicial deter*ination

R=!/G

 ?es. /t is undenia,le tat at te ti*e te petition was +led3 tere was pendin2

wit te Board a *otion for reconsideration. 8rdinaril3 its resolution sould ,e

awaited. :rior tereto3 an o,9ection 2rounded on pre*aturit can ,e raised.

8/17/2019 Case Digest (17) Arrow

2/2

oneteless3 counsel for petitioner would stress tat certiorari lies as te failure to

o,serve procedural due process ousted te Board of watever 9urisdiction it could

ave ad in te pre*ises. Te Court was i*pelled to 2o into te *erits of te

controvers at tis sta2e3 not onl ,ecause of te i*portance of te issue raised ,ut

also ,ecause of te stron2 pu,lic interest in avin2 te *atter settled. As was set

fort in 5ecutive 8rder o. 101 wic prescri,es te procedure to ,e followed ,te Board3 it is te polic of te State3 as swiftl as possi,le3 to i*prove te

deplora,le condition of veicular tra@c3 o,tain *a5i*u* utiliere te validit of a le2islation was passed upon in a certiorari proceedin2

to annul and set aside a writ of preli*inar in9unction3 to so act would ,e to

conserve ,ot ti*e and eort. Tose desirin2 to en2a2e in pu,lic utilit ,usiness as

well as te pu,lic are ,ot vitall concerned wit te +nal deter*ination of te

standards to ,e followed in te procedure tat *ust ,e o,served. Tere is a 2reat

pu,lic interest in a de+nitive outco*e of te crucial issue involved. 8ne of te *ost

noted autorities on Ad*inistrative !aw3 professor ennet Culp ;avis3 discussin2

te ripeness concept3 is of te view tat te resolution of wat could ,e a

de,ilitatin2 uncertaint wit te conceded a,ilit of te 9udiciar to wor out asolution of te pro,le* posed is a potent ar2u*ent for *ini*i