Drivers suit vs. city dead

For lack of interest by the complainant, the court has junked a case filed by a transport group against the Cebu City government and three other government entities for allegedly curtailing several public utility jeepneys from plying their routes.

In her one-page order, Regional Trial Court Judge Generosa Labra dismissed the injunction case filed in 1999 by the Cebu Confederation of Transport Operators and Drivers Incorporated against the city government, Cebu City Traffic Operations Management, Land Transportation Office and Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board.

In October 2005, the court ordered the city governments and its co-defendants to submit their documents in support of their motion for a summary judgment of the case. The court likewise directed the transport group to submit its documents relative to the motion.

A month later, the defendants filed their manifestation and compliance of the order. However, despite copies of the order and manifestation of compliance furnished to the transport group, the court said it still failed to comply with the court order.

The transport group filed the case in 1999 alleging that VUDTRASCO and other PUJ operators and drivers affiliated with it were prejudiced by the enforcement of Ordinance No. 1320, allegedly for violation of the franchise, particularly those pertaining to the travel line.

On January 23, 1989, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 1320 that specifies route descriptions with the corresponding route numbers to be plied by PUJs. The ordinance imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than two months or more than six months or a fine of not less than P200 but not more than P400 for any violation.

Section 4 of the ordinance also gives the traffic division of the city police the authority to limit the number of PUJs plying in each route in coordination with the LTFRB.

In February 1999, the petitioner alleged that PUJ drivers who belong to VUDTRASCO playing routes 12-I and O1-I were apprehended by LTO operatives for violation of travel line indicated in the franchises.

The apprehensions stemmed from the fact that the drivers should go back to their point of origin upon reaching the point of destination since the travel line, as indicated in the franchise contains the phrase "vice versa". - Joeberth M. Ocao/LPM