Manila, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has denied a petition by three big Luzon bus companies for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the implementation of a Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) ruling that paved the way for the revival and sale of 498 bus franchises of the defunct Pantranco North Express, Inc. to other bus firms.
In a resolution issued last June 28 but released only yesterday, the CA’s 8th Division said it found “no merit” in the plea of Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc, Genesis Transport Service Inc., and Pangasinan Solid North Transit Inc., for the “immediate issuance” of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction against the LTFRB ruling.
The three bus firms asked the appellate court to nullify the May 21 decision of LTFRB that affirmed the award of Pantranco’s bus franchises to its dismissed workers to answer for labor claims, and their subsequent sale to competitors of Rabbit, Genesis, and Solid North.
“In the case at bar, there is no showing that the matter is of extreme urgency and that petitioners will suffer grave injustice or sustain injury beyond possibility of repair or beyond possible compensation in damages,” the appellate court said in a three-page resolution.
The LTFRB had awarded the franchises last June to over 2,000 former employees, represented by Pantranco Retrenched Employees Association and the Pantranco Employees Association, to answer for millions of pesos in back wages the bus company had owed them.
The labor groups insisted that the Certificates of Public Convenience issued previously to Pantranco buses were still valid and were not expired at the time they were publicly auctioned by NLRC to the unions to partly answer for back wages and separation pay. Neither did the CPCs expire even as the bus firm closed due to bankruptcy in 1993. Thus, the CPCs were also legally and validly sold to other bus companies.
However, Department of Transportation and Communications Secretary Manuel Roxas II suspended the LTFRB’s awarding of Pantranco’s franchises to a private buyer, questioning the legality of the move.