QC Court stands by TRO on Uber, GrabCar permits

The Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 217 remained firm on its ruling stopping for 20 days the acceptance, processing and approving of permit applications for Uber and GrabCar operations amid confusion on the scope of the said restraining order.

“The TRO does not affect existing operations,” QCRTC Branch 217 Judge Santiago Arenas said.

READ: QCRTC stops DOTC, LTFRB from issuing permits to operate Uber, GrabCar

But Transport group Angat Tsuper Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator ng Pilipinas Genuine Organization Transport Coalition (Stop & Go) pointed out that “the function of the TRO is to stop current operation and not future operations.”

“If this court believes that the future operations should be restrained, it should have stated categorically,” Atty. David D. Erro said.

Erro insisted that covered by the restraining order is the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Department Order (DO) No. 2015-11 which allows the operation of new mode of transport including Transport Network Vehicle Services (TNVSs).

If that is covered by the TRO, Erro pointed out that there is no basis for Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Grab and TNVSs, and member vehicles to operate.

“How can spring rise higher than the source,” Erro asked the court.

But Judge Arenas said petitioner Stop & Go should have included in their petition Uber and GrabCar.

Judge Arenas, in various media interviews clarified that Uber and Grab are not covered by the TRO because they were not included by Stop & Go in their petition.

“In the [petition], it does not mention the names of Uber and Grab. So, how can we include that,” Judge Arenas asked adding that they did not send a notice of the hearing to Uber and Grab because they are not party to the case.

“If Uber and Grab are indispensable parties, they should have been included in the petition,” Judge Arenas said.

The government lawyer added that if the outcome of the case will have material effect on Uber and Grab, “why were they not included?”

Erro, however pointed out that although not mentioned in the DO, TNVSs include Uber and GrabCar.

Government lawyers also asked the court to clarify the coverage of the restraining order noting that there are other new modes of transportation allowed to operate under DO 2015-11.

“As long as they are covered, they are included,” Judge Arenas said.

 READ: Netizens vent ire on judge in social media over Uber, GrabCar

Government lawyers enumerated the following as covered under DO 2015-11: Rapid Bus Transport, Airport Bus and Premium Taxi.

“I am not aware of that,” Judge Arenas said.

Judge Arenas told the petitioner that if they want, they can ask him to inhibit from the case.

The restraining order stays. The court set another hearing next week. CDG