A   Court of Appeals (CA) ruling on the award of  Pantranco franchises denying a temporary restraining order ( TRO)  to petitioners seeking to stop the  implementation of the  award made by the Land Transport Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) in May is not a  ruling  on the validity of the franchises, a lawyer representing bus operators opposed to the franchise award said.
The statement from the workers that interpreted the non-grant of the TRO by the CA  as the equivalent of  a ruling  on the validity of the franchises  “is premature and irresponsible ,” said Hazel Minoza,  a lawyer for the bus companies opposed to the franchise award.
“The two workers  group, the PANREA and PEA, should  respect the  CA ruling  and cease and desist from  making such irresponsible statements,” Minoza said.
Minoza said the CA ruling, in fact, asked the petitioners to file the motion that would lead to the next step — the  CA taking up the issue on whether the franchises are valid or not.
Minoza  said a major intervening event that took place between the filing of a  request for a TRO and the CA’s  non-grant of the TRO sought, also removed the urgency  of getting a TRO from the CA.
Department of Transportation and Communication (DoTC) Secretary  Mar Roxas  ordered on June 27 the suspension of the franchise grant by the LTFRB and ordered an in-depth investigation of the award by his legal team.
The two board members who  approved the award of 489 lines of the long-defunct Pantranco North Express Inc.,  to five bus  companies owned by the Hernandez family —  Manuel  Iway and Samuel Garcia — hastily resigned  after the investigation order of Secretary Roxas.
A Roxas appointee, LTFRB chairman Jaime Jacob, dissented from the award made by Iway and Garcia but was overruled .
Jacob said the requisite survey for franchise need not to have been undertaken. Before lines are granted, the LTFRB requires scientific surveys called route measured capacity, or RMC, to back up franchise grants.   
Two new appointees replacing the central figures in the Pantranco award had been named by  President Aquino to join Jacob at the  LTFRB board.
Many bus  operators outside of the Hernandez family  had written  Roxas to express their gratitude for the swift decision to suspend and investigate  the award.
Minoza said the workers groups have a tendency to cite mythical legal rulings to make the false  claim that the franchises are still valid.
First, they cited a supposed 1993  Supreme Court (SC) ruling that  awarded the franchises to the workers.
The first ruling of the SC on the Pantranco workers case was made  on Oct.  17, 1996 — or more than three years after the Pantranco lines had been declared expired and this was a generic award that made no mention of the franchises.
Minoza  also noted that the Iway-Garcia award of the Pantranco franchises in May 2012 to the companies of the Hernandez group,  named Pantranco, the corporation, and PANREA, the workers’ group as the vendors.
Minoza said that in May 2012, the two entities  had “bogus status” with revoked certificates of registration from the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The SEC said it revoked their certificates of registration for their failure to comply with basic reportorial requirements.