MANILA, Philippines — Ride-sharing company Angkas has filed before the Supreme Court (SC) an urgent motion to lift the temporary restraining order (TRO) which effectively bars them from operating.
In the motion filed last December 13, DBDOYC, Inc. that owns Angkas said the lifting would not only help the traffic problem in the metropolis but also aide riders who rely on Angkas for their livelihood.
“With the Christmas season upon us, the traffic situation in Metro Manila is bound to worsen with helpless and hapless commuters having to suffer limited options. Worse, the scepter of jobs being lost by thousands of Angkas drivers looms large,” Angkas said in the 26-page motion.
“Private respondent most respectfully implores the Honorable Court to consider such deleterious consequences in taking a second hard look at the TRO it had issued,” it added.
Angkas noted that the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), which acted as petitioners, would not be on the losing end if the TRO is lifted.
“In contrast, it is clear that petitioners will not suffer any injury or damage if the TRO is lifted. As the Court of last resort, it is hoped that it will not turn a blind eye to the harshness of the outcomes the TRO will lead to,” they said.
Aside from filing a motion, Angkas also complied with the SC order to comment on LTFRB’s petition.
Last December 5, the SC issued a TRO against the preliminary injunction from the Mandaluyong City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 213, which prevented the LTFRB from meddling in Angkas operations.
The Mandaluyong RTC’s decision in September 2018 allowed Angkas to operate for a while after LTFRB initially halted their business.
READ: ‘Angkas’ is back: Mandaluyong court gives green light for its operations
READ: SC temporarily stops Angkas operations
According to Angkas, their right to due process was violated as they were not informed prior to the decision.
They also claimed that LTFRB violated the hierarchy of courts after they filed a petition before the SC even if the case at the lower court was yet to be settled.
“The TRO potentially means the demise of private respondent considering it is being asked to close shop for an indefinite period of time […] Yet for a catastrophic consequence, private respondent [DBDOYC, Inc.] was not even given the slightest opportunity to be heard,” Angkas said.
“For violating the doctrine of hierarchy of court and for failing to file a motion for reconsideration before filing the present petition, the Honorable Court at least should have asked the private respondent to comment on petitioners’ application for TRO instead of issuing it ex parte,” they added.