Case of Cogeo vs CA

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/9/2019 Case of Cogeo vs CA

    1/4

  • 8/9/2019 Case of Cogeo vs CA

    2/4

    reconsideration pra#ing that the orders of April + and Ma# ;, +- 7be entirel# reconsidered andrevo/ed=7 and that the Commissioner &as &illing to hear ane& these operators 7and to receive&hatever evidence ... the# ma# &ant to introduce,7 for &hich reason the corresponding hearing &as7set for Aug. or vice5versa7 to inform the PC, &ithin+1 da#s, 7&hich of their units shall be operated in the Cit# of Manila and suburbs, and &hich shall beoperated in the provinces.7 (he foregoing measures &ere implemented b# Administrative Order No.+ of the Commissioner, dated *ebruar# +;, +-?, pertinent parts of &hich read)

    All public utilities including 'eepne#s heretofore authori4ed to operate from the Cit# of Manilato an# point in "u4on, be#ond the perimeter of 8reater Manila, shall carr# the &ords 7ForProvincial "peration7 in bold and clear t#pes on both sides or on one side and at the bac/ ofthe vehicle and must not be less than +6 inches in dimension. All such vehicles mar/ed 7*orProvincial Operation7 are authori4ed to operate outside the perimeter of 8reater Manila in

    accordance &ith their respective certificates of public convenience, and are not authori4ed toenter or to operate be#ond the boundar# line fi3ed in our order of March +6, +- and :ul#66, +-, &ith the e3ception of those vehicles authori4ed to carr# their provincial passengersthru the boundar# line up to their Manila termini &hich shall be identified b# a stic/er signedand furnished b# the PC and b# the Ma#ors of the affected Cities and municipalities, and&hich shall be carried on a prominent place of the vehicle about the upper middle part of the&indshield.

    333 333 333

    All such public utilit# vehicles authori4ed b# this Order to enter the Cit# of Manila and to carr#their passengers thru the boundar# line, are not permitted to load or unload or to pic/ and>ordrop passengers along the &a#, but must do so onl# in the follo&ing places=

    a. @ehicles coming from the NOR(, ma# load or unload at the imasalang Rotonda or atthe Corner of :ose Abad antos t. and Ri4al Avenue=

    b. @ehicles coming from the EA( ma# load or unload at the ta. Mesa Rotonda or at theCorner of 8overnor *orbes t. and Espaa=

    c. @ehicles coming from the O$( ma# load or unload at the an Andres5(aft Rotonda= atPla4a "a&ton or at the Corner of arrison and Mabini treets near the Manila Doo.

    On *ebruar# 6;, +-?, the effectivit# of the bus ban &as further deferred to March 6, +-?.

    Prior thereto, or on March 61, +-, the PC had granted "agman a certificate of publicconvenience to operate fifteen 0+

  • 8/9/2019 Case of Cogeo vs CA

    3/4

    said petitions, "agman commenced the present action, alleging that the bus ban is inapplicable tohim, because, at the time of the issuance of the first order establishing the ban, he &as not #et apublic utilit# operator= that he had not been notified of the hearings held on August

  • 8/9/2019 Case of Cogeo vs CA

    4/4

    ample time &ithin &hich to submit his ob'ections, if an#, to said proposal, #et he did not do so untilafter the ban had become effective.

    G. is ob'ections to said ban, as set forth in the urgent petitions filed b# him &ith PC, on March