G.R. No. 30382. March 05, 1929
CEBU AUTOBUS CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANDRES D.DAMIAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
JOHNS, J.:
“(a) The Director of Public Works shall
cause to be prepared a form, which shall be furnished free of charge
upon request, and upon which every person who desires hereafter to
operate any motor vehicle as a chauffeur shall answer under oath all
questions asked and give all in- formation required by the Director of
Public Works, including his true name, address and age, the number,
date, and place of issue of his cedula, and the names, kinds, types, or
styles of motor vehicles which he is competent to operate, together
with the form and amount of their motive power, and whether his senses
of sight and hearing are normal.“(b) The Director
of Public Works or his deputies are hereby authorized in their
discretion to require an applicant for a license as chauffeur to answer
such further questions or to submit to such an examination touching his
qualifications as chauffeur, as in the judgment of the Director of
Public Works or his deputies, will best disclose the applicant’s
fitness and competency to operate motor vehicles.“(c)
If after such, examination, or without the same, the Director of Public
Works or his deputies believe the applicant to possess the necessary
qualifications and knowledge, they shall, upon the receipt of a fee of
five pesos, issue to such applicant a license to operate as a
chauffeur, motor vehicles of the kind, style, type, or make and power
described in the application, until the last working day of February
next following”, or until such license is otherwise revoked. Each
applicant for a license as chauffeur, except an owner not operating for
hire, shall, upon notice that his qualifications have been found
satisfactory, and prior to the issuance of said license, furnish the
Director of Public Works or his deputies, three copies of a recent and
readily recognizable photograph of said applicant, one copy of which
shall be securely attached to the license, and two copies of which
shall be filed and kept as provided under section eighteen of this Act.
If the said Director or his deputies do not believe the applicant to be
a person qualified to operate motor vehicles, they shall not issue a
license as chauffeur to such applicant, in which event the applicant’s
fee shall be returned to him.“(f) The Director of
Public Works may suspend for a period not exceeding three (3) months
or, after hearing, revoke any license issued under the provisions of
this Act, and may order any such license to be delivered to him
whenever he has reason to believe that the holder thereof is an
improper or incompetent person to operate motor vehicles, or is
operating or using a motor vehicle in, or as an accessory to, the
practice or commission of any unlawful act, or so as to endanger the
public; and the license so suspended or revoked shall not be reissued,
unless upon investigation, the Director of Public Works decides that
the operator may again safely be permitted to operate.“(g)
Appeals from the decision of the Director of Public Works on the
revocation of, or; his refusal to renew, licenses under the provisions
of this section may be taken to the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications.”
As such provisions are connected with, and relate to, section 47 of the Act, which is as follows:
“The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized
with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications to
designate as his agent and deputies, district engineers or provincial
or municipal treasurers at such places and offices as he may deem
expedient to assist in carrying out the provisions oi this Act, And
each and every district engineer or provincial or municipal treasurer
so designated is hereby vested with all the power and authority which
is conferred by this Act upon the Director of Public Works or his
deputies, as defined in subsection (o)
of section one of this Act. And the Director of Public Works is hereby
authorized and empowered to formulate and issue witn the approval of
the Secretary of Commerce and Communications such administrative rules
and regulations as may be found necessary to govern his agents and
deputies and to give full effect to the provisions of this Act.”
Subsection (a) of section 14, provides that the Director of Public
Works shall prepare the form for the application of a license and the
questions which the applicant is required to answer. Subsection (b)
provides that the “Director of Public Works or his deputies” in their
discretion may require an application for a license as chauffeur to
answer such further questions “as in the judgment of the Director of
Public Works or his deputies, will best disclose the applicant’s
fitness and competency to operate motor vehicles.” Subsection (c)
provides that if the “Director of Public Works or his deputies believe
the applicant to possess the necessary qualifications and knowledge,”
they shall issue the license upon receipt of P5, and that “if the said
Director or his deputies do not believe the applicant to be a person
qualified to operate motor vehicles,” they shall not issue the license.
It will be noted that in subsection (f) of this section, the words “or his deputies” are omitted and do not follow the words “Director of Public Works.”
Subsection (b) of section 20, provides as follows:
“The Director of Public Works or his deputies shall,
in accord with rules to be determined and published by the Director of
Public Works, fix the maximum carrying capacity in passengers or
freight, of all motor vehicles with the exception of private passenger
automobiles. The carrying capacity thus fixed is to be entered on the
certificate of registration and the ‘Motor Vehicle Register” and
thereby made of record, as will the Director of Public Works or his
deputies also fix and record in the same manner the number of persons
permitted on the front or driver’s seat of any motor vehicle.”
The same thing is true as to section 47 which provides:
“The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized, etc.”
That section also provides:
“And each and every district engineer or provincial
or municipal treasurer so designated is hereby vested with all the
power and authority which is conferred by this Act upon the Director of
Public Works or his deputies, as defined in subsection (o) of section one of this Act.
And subsection (o) of section 1 provides:
“The Director of Public Works or his deputies’ is
defined as the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works or
such representatives, deputies, agents, or assistants, as he may, with
the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications, authorize
or detail in writing for the purposes contemplated by this Act.”And
section 47 further provides that the Director of Public Works is
authorized, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications, to formulate such “rules and regulations as may be
found necessary to govern his agents and deputies and to give full
effect to the provisions of this Act.”
The Act contains fifty-four different sections, and is entitled “An
Act to amend and compile the laws regulating motor vehicle traffic in
the Philippine Islands, the laws providing for the registration of
motor vehicles and the licensing of motor vehicle operators, the laws
requiring lights of all vehicles using highways at night, and the laws
prescribing penalties for violations thereof, and for other
purposes.”
It is very apparent that its purpose and intent is to provide rules
and regulations for motor vehicle traffic, and that it vests the
authority for the issuance of chauffeur’s license in “the Director of
Public Works or his deputies,” and that it gives the Director control
and supervisions over chauffeurs.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the volume of motor vehicle
business is increasing very fast in the Philippine Islands, and that
daily many thousands of persons are riding in autobuses operated under
the Public Utility Law; that the lives of all such passengers are more
or less at the risk and depend upon the skill, ability and care with
which the autobus is operated by the chauffeur. It is also a matter of
common knowledge that a large number of them are careless, reckless and
negligent in the discharge of their duties, and it is almost a daily
occurrence that some passenger is killed or injured, through the
negligence or want of skill of the chauffeur. It is very apparent from
the reading of the whole of Act No. 3045, that it was the purpose and
intent of the Legislature to prevent injuries and accidents, and to
insure the safety of the traveling public in so far as it was possible
to do so. In the very nature of things, the Director of Public Works
cannot spread his person out all over the Islands, and to carry out the
purpose and intent of the Act, it is necessary for him to act and speak
through deputies on the ground, who are presumed to have at least some
knowledge of the personal habits and conduct of the chauffeur, the
manner in which he operates the car, and whether or not, for good and
sufficient reasons and the safety of the travelling public, his license
should be suspended. In legal effect, and in the very nature of things,
any other construction of Act No. 3045, would leave chauffeurs without
any control or supervision over them by any one. That is to say, if the
Director of Public Works in person only has the power to suspend the
license of the chauffeur for misconduct, no matter how grave might be
the offense, the purpose and intent of the law would be defeated, could
not and would not be enforced, for the simple reason that there would
not be any person to enforce it. It must be conceded that under section
14 of the Act, the deputies of the Director of Public Works have the
legal right to issue the license and to carry out its purpose and
intent. It must follow that they would also have the right to suspend
the license; otherwise, the traveling public would be at the mercy of
incompetent and irresponsible chauffeurs. That was never the purpose
and intent of the law.
Again, a chauffeur’s license is nothing more than a permit to
operate a motor vehicle, and is issued on his own showing and the
assumption that he is competent and qualified, and the license may be
issued by a deputy of the Director of Public Works. As stated, to hold
that the license may be issued by a deputy, and that it can only be
suspended by the Director of Public Works, in actual practice, would
nullify the spirit and intent of the Act, which is to insure the safety
of the travelling public. This does not mean that a deputy, without a
good and sufficient cause, or in an autocratic manner, may suspend the
license of any chauffeur, but it does mean that, if the negligence,
actions and conduct of the chauffeur is such as to endanger the safety
of the travelling public, that the deputy has the right to suspend his
license,
and that his remedy would lie in an appeal to the Director of Public Works.
The decision of the lower court is based upon the strict letter of
the law, but the Act must be construed as a whole, and when so
construed, the power which the deputy has to issue a chauffeur’s
license carries with it and implies that he also has the right to
suspend the license for good and sufficient reasons and the safety of
the traveling public.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the petition
dismissed. This being in the nature of a test case, neither party to
recover costs. So ordered.
Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
DISSENTING
MALCOLM, J,:
Section 14 (f) of Act No. 3045, the Motor Vehicle Law, provides that “The Director of Public Works
may suspend for a period not exceeding three (3) months or, after
hearing, revoke any license issued under the provisions of this Act, *
* *.” Section 47 then authorizes the Director of Public Works to
designate as his agents and deputies, district engineers or provincial
or municipal treasurers “with all the power and authority which is
conferred by this Act upon the Director of Public Works or his
deputies, as defined in subsection (o) of section one of this Act.”
Subsection (o) of section 1 above referred to provides: ” ‘The Director of Public Works or his deputies‘
is defined as the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works
or such representatives, deputies, agents, or assistants, as he may,
with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications,
authorize or detail in writing for the purposes contemplated by this
Act.” Appearing just before subsection (o) of section 1 is subsection (n). It reads:” ‘The Director of Public Works” except where expressly stated otherwise, is defined as the actual or acting chief of the Bureau of Public Works.”
From these provisions of the Motor Vehicle Law, it is evident that
the Director of Public Works has the power of suspension, and that that
power may be vested in a district engineer or provincial or municipal
treasurer. But as to subsection (o) of section 1, it defines
the phrase “The Director of Public Works or his deputies” and not the
phrase “The Director of Public Works.” Since according to the
stipulated facts the officer who attempted to suspend chauffeur’s
licenses is a deputy of the Director of Public Works other than a
district engineer or provincial or municipal treasurer, this deputy
does not come within the purview of the law.
In the lower court, the provincial fiscal relied on section 4 of the
Administrative Code providing: “A ministerial act which may be lawfully
done by any officer may be performed by him through any deputy or agent
lawfully created or appointed.” But the power to suspend is a power
involving discretion. It is the rule that without statutory authority,
deputies have no power with respect to the duties of an office
involving the exercise of judgment and discretion (46 C. J., 1063).
Regarding the argument made with reference to what the law should
be, that is beside the point for it is for the courts to construe the
law as it is. It may be for the public good to have all the deputies of
the Director of Public Works possess the power to suspend chauffeur’s
licenses. If this be so the law should be amended to this effect.
For the foregoing reasons, I think that the decision of Judge
Vickers in the trial court prohibiting the defendant from suspending
chauffeur’s licenses conforms to the law and should here be affirmed.