ATIENZO vs.

ABELLERA
MATIENZO vs. ABELLERA
G.R. No. L-45839 - June 1, 1988

FACTS:
The petitioners and private respondents are all authorized taxicab operators in Metro Manila. The respondents,
however, admittedly operate “colorum” or “kabit” taxicab units. On or about the second week of February, 1977,
private respondents filed their petitions with the respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) for the legalization of
their unauthorized “excess” taxicab units citing PD 101, promulgated on January 17, 1973, “to eradicate the
harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine operators, by replacing or allowing them to become legitimate and
responsible operators.” Within a matter of days, the respondent Board promulgated its orders setting the
application for hearing and granting applicants provisional authority to operate their “excess taxicab units” for
which legalization was sought.

Opposing the applications and seeking to restrain the grant of provisional permits or authority, as well as the
annulment of permits already granted under PD 101, the petitioners allege that the BOT acted without
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petitions for legalization and awarding special permits to the private
respondents. Citing Section 4 of PD 101, the petitioners argue that neither the BOT chairman nor any member
thereof had the power, at the time the petitions were filed (i.e. in 1977), to legitimize the clandestine operations
under PD 101 as such power had been limited to a period of six (6) months from and after the promulgation of
the Decree on January 17, 1973. They state that, thereafter, the power lapses and becomes functus officio.

ISSUE:
Whether or not BOT can still legalize clandestine and unlawful taxicab operations under Section 1 of PD 101 despite
the lapse of six (6) months after the promulgation of the Decree.

RULING:
Yes.

A reading of Section 1, PD 101, shows a grant of powers to the respondent Board to issue provisional permits as
a step towards the legalization of colorum taxicab operations without the alleged time limitation. There is nothing
in Section 4, cited by the petitioners, to suggest the expiration of such powers six (6) months after promulgation
of the Decree. Rather, it merely provides for the withdrawal of the State’s waiver of its right to punish said
colorum operators for their illegal acts. In other words, the cited section declares when the period of moratorium
suspending the relentless drive to eliminate illegal operators shall end. Clearly, there is no impediment to the
Board’s exercise of jurisdiction under its broad powers under the Public Service Act to issue certificates of public
convenience to achieve the avowed purpose of PD 101 (Sec. 16a, Public Service Act, Nov. 7, 1936).
It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board or commission has a certain power, the
authority given should be liberally construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created, and that which
is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as germane to the law.
Necessarily, too, where the end is required, the appropriate means are deemed given.