Henares vs. LTFRB Case Digest

Kintanar, Marie Caitlin C. EH405 HILARION M. HENARES, JR., VICTOR C. AGUSTIN, ALFREO L. HENARES, ANIEL L. HENARES, ENRI!UE "ELO HENARES, an# CRISTINA "ELO HENARES, petitioners, vs. LAN TRANS$ORTATION FRANCHISING AN REGULATOR% "OAR an# E$ARTMENT OF TRANS$ORTATION AN COMMUNICATIONS, respondents. FACTS& •

•

Petitioners challenge this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB and the !epartment of Transportation and Communications (!"TC to re#uire pu$l pu$lic ic util utilit ity y vehi vehicl cles es (P%& (P%&s s to use use comp comprresse essed d natu natura rall gas gas (C' (C' as alternative fuel.  To  To counter the aforementioned aforementioned detrimental e)ects of emissions from P%&s, petitioners propose propose the use of C'. *ccording *ccording to petitioners, C' is a natural gas comprised mostly of methane which although containing small amounts of prop propan ane e and and $uta $utane ne,, + is color colorles less s and odorle odorless ss and consi consider dered ed the cleanest fossil fuel $ecause it produces much less pollutants than coal and petroleum

ISSUES&

+. -hether -hether or not petitioner petitioners s herein herein have legal capacity capacity to $ring $ring this petition petition to the Court. . -hether -hether or not mandamu mandamus s can $e validly validly issue issue against against responde respondents nts so as to compel P%&s to use C' as alternative fuel. Hel#&

+. The The /C rule ruled d in the the 0rst 0rst issu issue e pres presen ente ted d that that ther there e is no disp disput ute e that that petitioners have a legal right which is sought to $e recogni1ed and enforced to $ring the case $efore this Court. The petitioners2 standing hinges to the fact fact that that a party3s party3s standi standing ng $efor $efore e this this Court Court is a proce procedur dural al techni technica calit lity y which may, in the e4ercise of the Court3s discretion, $e set aside in view of  the importance of the issue raised. -e $rush aside this issue of technicality under the principle of the transcendental transcendental importance to the pu$lic, especially so if these cases demand that they $e settled promptly. . "n the second second issue, issue, however, however, the /C ruled ruled in the negative negative such such that the writ writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re#uire P%&2s to use C' is unav unavai aili ling ng.. 5and 5andam amus us is avai availa la$l $le e only only to comp compel el the the doin doing g of an act act speci0cally en6oined $y law as a duty. 7ere, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the !"TC to order owners of motor vehicles to use C'. 5andamus will not generally lie from one $ranch of government to a coordinate $ranch, for the o$vious reason that neither is inferior to the other.  Therefore,  Therefore, the Court $elieves that it is only timely to rea8rm the premium that has placed placed on the prote protecti ction on of the envir environ onmen ment. t. 7oweve 7oweverr seriou serious s the pro$l pro$lem em in

pollution may $e and how fatal these pollutants are to the health of the citi1ens, and urgently re#uiring resort to drastic measures to reduce air pollutants emitted $y motor vehicles, we must admit in particular that petitioners are una$le to pinpoint the law that imposes an indu$ita$le legal duty on respondents that will 6ustify a grant of the writ of mandamus compelling the use of C' for pu$lic utility vehicles.