Appeals Court dismisses petition filed by 2 groups of taxi drivers » Manila Bulletin News



By Rey Panaligan 

The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed, on technicality, the petition filed by two groups of taxi drivers to stop the Land Transportation and Franchising Regulatory Board (LTFRB) from implementing its 2016 decision that lowered the flag down rate from P40 to P30.

Court of Appeals
(Credits: KJ Rosales | Manila Bulletin file photo)

In its decision, the CA said the taxi drivers failed to comply with the directive to correct the defects in their petition.

The CA said attached to the petition was a mere photocopy, instead of a certified true copy, of the LTFRB decision on March 8, 2016. It said the petitioners also failed to state the government-issued identification cards they used in the notarization of documents required of the petition.

“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 a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.

The petition which sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) was filed by the Fair Organization of Taxi Drivers of the Philippines Inc. and the Alliance of National Urban Poor Organizations Assembly Inc.

In 2016, the LTFRB set the flag-down rate for taxi fare nationwide, except for the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), at P30 and P3.50 for every succeeding 500 meters and P3.50 for the waiting time per 90 seconds.

For airport taxis nationwide and for CAR, the flag-down rate was set at P30 and P2 for every succeeding 400 meters and P2 for the waiting time per 60 seconds.

In their petition, the taxi drivers told the CA that the March 2016 fares should not be implemented because of the increases in the prices of vehicle spare parts, labor, cost of living, basic commodities and other incidental costs for the operation of taxi services.

But the CA dismissed the petition citing Rule 46, Section 3 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the compliance with the requirements for filing a 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 ruled.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

All Credit Goes There : Source link