Case against Pantranco continues, says lawyer

MANILA, Philippines—The lawyer for three bus companies opposed to the sale of the defunct Pantranco North Express Inc.’s franchises described on Friday as “premature and irresponsible” the claim of the shuttered bus firm’s workers that the Court of Appeals had sustained the validity of the contested franchises.

In a statement, lawyer Hazel Minoza said the appellate court in its June 28 order only ruled on the three bus companies’ petition for a temporary restraining order on the sale and not on the merits of the case they had filed questioning the order of the Land Transportation Franchising and Transportation Board (LTFRB) allowing the sale of the franchises by the former Pantranco workers.

The petitioners—Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines Inc., Genesis Transport Service Inc. and Pangasinan Solid North Transit Inc.—had filed a case seeking a recall of the LTFRB’s May 21 resolution that allowed the retrenched Pantranco employees to sell the 489 bus franchises to the Hernandez family of Victory Liner.

“The recent Court of Appeals ruling on the award of the Pantranco franchises was a simple and straightforward non-grant of a temporary restraining order (TRO) … and not a ruling on the validity of the franchises,” Minoza said.

She said the statement of the Pantranco Retrenched Employees Association (Panrea) and Pantranco Employees Association (PEA) claiming that the court’s decision was a “ruling on the validity of the franchises is premature and irresponsible.”

“The two workers groups, Panrea and PEA, should respect the Court of Appeals and cease and desist from making such irresponsible statements,” she said.

The lawyer maintained that the ruling ordered the petitioners to “file the motion that would lead to the next step—the (court) taking up the issue on whether the franchises are valid or not.”

Said Minoza: “A major intervening event that took place between the filing of a request for a TRO and the (court’s) non-grant of the TRO sought also removed the urgency of getting a TRO from the (appeals court).”

In a three-page ruling, the appellate court said the three bus operators failed to support their request for a TRO on the LTFRB’s resolution that allowed the sale of 489 Pantranco franchises to their rival bus firms.

“In the case at bar, there is no showing that the matter is of extreme urgency and that the petitioners will suffer grave injustice or sustain injury beyond possibility of repair or beyond possible compensation in damages,” the court declared.