Metropolitan Traffic Command West Traffic District vs. Gonong GR No. 91023, July 13, 1990Cruz, J. GR Nos.

95203-05, December 18, 1990 Sarmiento, J. Atty. Dante David claims that the rear license plate of his car was removed by petitioner while his vehicle was parked in Escolta. He filed a complaint in the RTC of Manila. He questioned the petitioners act on the ground that not only was the car not illegally parked but that there was no law or ordinance authorizing such removal. The lower court ruled that LOI 43, which the defendant (petitioner) invoked, did not empower it to detach, remove and confiscate vehicle plates or motor vehicles illegally parked and unattended. It merely authorizes the removal of said vehicles when they are obstacles to free passage or continued flow of traffic on streets and highways. Moreover, the said LOI had been PD 1605. The petitioners pray for injunctive relief to stop the ERB from implementing its Order mandating a provisional increase in the prices of petroleum and petroleum products. The Order, which was in pursuance to EO 172, was a response to the separate applications of Caltex, Pilipinas Shell and Petron Corporation for the Board to increase the wholesale posted prices of petroleum products. Petitioners submit that the Order was issued with grave abuse of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction and without proper notice and hearing. ISSUE: W/N the ERB committed grave abuse of discretion ISSUE: W/N petitioner is authorized to penalize traffic violations as such HELD: NO. While under EO 172, a hearing is indispensable, it does not preclude the Board from ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase, as it did, subject to its final disposition of whether or not: 1) to make it permanent;2) to reduce or increase it further; or 3) to deny the application. The Board has jurisdiction to decree a price adjustment, subject to the requirements of notice and hearing. Pending that, however, it may order, under Section 8 of EO 172, an authority to increase provisionally, without need of a hearing, subject to the final outcome of the proceeding. HELD: No. What the LOI punishes is not a traffic violation but a traffic obstruction, which is an altogether different offense. LOI 43 deals with motor vehicles that stall on streets and highways and not those that are intentionally parked in a public place in violation of a traffic law or regulation. In the case at bar, it is not alleged or shown that private respondents vehicle stalled on a public thoroughfare and obstructed the flow of traffic. The charge against him is that he purposely parked his vehicle in a no-parking area. The act, if true is a violation that may not be punished under LOI 43. The applicable law is PD 1605, which does not include removal and confiscation of the license plate of the vehicle among the imposable penalties.