By Rey Panaligan
The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld a Makati City regional trial court (RTC) ruling that, in effect, affirmed a government policy which bans motorcycles with less than 400 cubic centimeters (CC) engine displacement from using the limited access road facilities or expressways.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio Santos, the CA also upheld the RTC’s ruling that motorcycles with sidecars, even if they have a minimum of 400 CC engine displacement, are barred from using the expressways.
(Pixabay / MANILA BULLETIN)
The CA decision dismissed the petition filed by Motorbelle Corporation and its officers who claimed that the order issued by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) on motorcycles along the expressways causes confusion among motorcycle owners and drivers.
Under DOTC’s Department Order No. 2007-38, “only motorcycles with an engine displacement of at least 400 CC shall be allowed to be operated within the limited access facilities.”
Motorbelle and its officers claimed that the order covers motorcycles with or without sidecars.
They told the CA that Motorbelle is the exclusive distributor in the Philippines of Ural motorcycles with sidecars and engine displacement of 750 CC. They added the DOTC should clarify its DO 2007-38 to the effect that motorcycles with sidecars, even if the engine displacement is 400 CC or more, are banned from the expressways.
In its ruling, the RTC said that DO 2007-38 refers only to motorcycles without sidecars. It said it had to dismiss Motorbelle and its officers’ petition because they have no legal standing to file the case since at the time of the filing of the case, the firm is not a registered dealer or its officers are not owners of registered motorcycles with sidecars.
Thus, the trial court said there can be no injury sustained by them considering none of their motorcycles can be allowed to operate within the limited access facilities or the expressways.
At the same time, the trial court said Motorbelle and its officers should have brought first their grievances before the DOTC which has the primary authority to enforce all laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to transportation in the country.
Upholding the RTC’s ruling, the CA said Motorbelle and its officers failed to show the “existence of justiciable” controversy since none of the Ural motorcycles were registered with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) for legal use in the country.
“Petitioners-appellants’ arguments that the non-registration of Ural motorcycles with the LTO is irrelevant, is also unavailing. A closer reading of DO No. 2007-38 would show that it covers only those motorcycles which complied with the licensing requirements of LTO,” the CA said.
It said LTO registration is relevant since it would demonstrate that there was a violation of their rights as a result of the issuance of DO 2007-38.
“Otherwise, if none of the Ural motorcycles are registered or none of petitioner-appellants are registered owners of the same, DO No. 2007-38 will not apply to them and they cannot claim that they sustained or are in the immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the issuance of DO No. 2007-38,” it stressed.
(Pixabay / MANILA BULLETIN)
The CA decision dismissed the petition filed by Motorbelle Corporation and its officers who claimed that the order issued by the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) on motorcycles along the expressways causes confusion among motorcycle owners and drivers.
Under DOTC’s Department Order No. 2007-38, “only motorcycles with an engine displacement of at least 400 CC shall be allowed to be operated within the limited access facilities.”
Motorbelle and its officers claimed that the order covers motorcycles with or without sidecars.
They told the CA that Motorbelle is the exclusive distributor in the Philippines of Ural motorcycles with sidecars and engine displacement of 750 CC. They added the DOTC should clarify its DO 2007-38 to the effect that motorcycles with sidecars, even if the engine displacement is 400 CC or more, are banned from the expressways.
In its ruling, the RTC said that DO 2007-38 refers only to motorcycles without sidecars. It said it had to dismiss Motorbelle and its officers’ petition because they have no legal standing to file the case since at the time of the filing of the case, the firm is not a registered dealer or its officers are not owners of registered motorcycles with sidecars.
Thus, the trial court said there can be no injury sustained by them considering none of their motorcycles can be allowed to operate within the limited access facilities or the expressways.
At the same time, the trial court said Motorbelle and its officers should have brought first their grievances before the DOTC which has the primary authority to enforce all laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to transportation in the country.
Upholding the RTC’s ruling, the CA said Motorbelle and its officers failed to show the “existence of justiciable” controversy since none of the Ural motorcycles were registered with the Land Transportation Office (LTO) for legal use in the country.
“Petitioners-appellants’ arguments that the non-registration of Ural motorcycles with the LTO is irrelevant, is also unavailing. A closer reading of DO No. 2007-38 would show that it covers only those motorcycles which complied with the licensing requirements of LTO,” the CA said.
It said LTO registration is relevant since it would demonstrate that there was a violation of their rights as a result of the issuance of DO 2007-38.
“Otherwise, if none of the Ural motorcycles are registered or none of petitioner-appellants are registered owners of the same, DO No. 2007-38 will not apply to them and they cannot claim that they sustained or are in the immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the issuance of DO No. 2007-38,” it stressed.