G.R. No. L-45839 June 1, 1988
RUFINO MATIENZO, GODOFREDO ESPIRITU, DIOSCORRO FRANCO, AND LA SUERTE TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. LEOPOLDO M. ABELLERA, ACTING CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, HON. GODOFREDO Q. ASUNCION, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION, ARTURO DELA CRUZ, MS TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., NEW FAMILIA TRANSPORTATION CO., ROBERTO MOJARES, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners and private respondents are all authorized taxicab operators in Metro Manila. The private respondents, however, were operating unauthorized “colorum” or “kabit” units. In February 1977, these private respondents filed petitions with the Board of Transportation (BOT) seeking legalization of their excess units under Presidential Decree No. 101, which aimed to convert clandestine operators into legitimate ones. The BOT promptly set the applications for hearing and granted provisional authority to operate the units pending final resolution.
The petitioners opposed these applications, arguing the BOT acted without jurisdiction. They contended that PD 101’s grant of power to legalize clandestine operations was limited to a period of six months from its promulgation on January 17, 1973, and had thus lapsed by 1977. They further cited implementing rules, including Letter of Instructions No. 379 and BOT Memorandum Circulars, which they claimed imposed a ban on granting such provisional permits and limited the acceptance of legalization applications to those filed before July 17, 1973.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the BOT retained the power to legalize clandestine taxicab operations under PD 101 after the six-month transitory period; and (2) whether the BOT’s procedure in granting provisional permits and accepting the applications violated due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the BOT’s orders. On the issue of legalization power, the Court deferred to the BOT’s initial discretion to accept and process the applications. It held that the jurisdiction of the BOT to take cognizance of such applications was settled. Judicial review of administrative actions is generally premature prior to their completion and finality. The Court would only interfere upon a showing of fraud, grave abuse of discretion, or error of law in the final administrative decision, which was not yet present as the main applications were still pending hearing.
Regarding due process, the Court ruled that PD 101 did not require prior notice and hearing for the grant of temporary provisional authority. The provisional nature of the permit and the guarantee of a full hearing on the main application were sufficient safeguards. For the main legalization applications themselves, the requirement for notice and hearing under the Public Service Act was substantially complied with, as the BOT had set the petitions for hearing. Any technical lack of personal notice was cured by the petitioners’ ability to timely file their opposition. The issue concerning the grant of provisional permits was rendered moot, as the permits granted were expressly limited to expire on June 30, 1977, a date which had already passed.