Traspo LTFRB vs. GV Florida

G.R. No.
213088
LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB), Petitioner

vs.
G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT, INC., Respondent
Feb 7, 2014 around 7:20 in the morning
Accident occurred at bontoc mountain province
15 dead
32 injured
Invertigation of DOTC-CAR, reocrds of LTO and LTFRB shows that the plate number of the bus actually
belongs to a certain NORBERTO CUE SR.
Bus involve is not duly authorized to operate public Transportation
LTFRB issues order suspending the operation of 10 buses
. Inspection and determination of road worthiness of the authorized PUB unit of respondents-
operators bringing the said buses to the Motor Vehicle Inspection Service (MVIS) of the Land
Transportation Office, together with the authorized representatives of the Board;
2. Undergo Road Safety Seminar of respondents-operators' drivers and conductors to be conducted

or scheduled by the Board and/or its authorized seminar provider;
3. Compulsory Drug Testing of the respondents-operators' drivers and conductors to be conducted

by authorized/accredited agency of the Department of Health and the Land Transportation Office;
4. Submit the Certificates of Registration and latest LTO Official Receipts of the units, including the
names of the respective drivers and conductors; and
5. Submit the video clippings of roadworthiness inspection, Road Safety Seminar and Drug Testing. 3
Furthermore, respondent and Cue were ordered to show cause why their respective CPCs should
not be suspended, canceled or revoked due to the said accident.
Thereafter, in its Incident Report dated February 12, 2014, the DOTC-CAR stated, among others:
that the License Plate Number attached to the ill-fated bus was indeed TXT-872, which belongs to a
different unit owned by Cue; that the wrecked bus had actual engine and chassis numbers DE12T-
601104BD and KTP1011611C, respectively; that, per registration records, the subject bus was
4
registered as "private" on April 4, 2013 with issued License Plate No. UDO 762; and that the
registered owner is Dagupan Bus Co., Inc. (Dagupan Bus) while the previous owner is herein
respondent bus company.
Dagupan Bus was required to submit an answer in DOTC CAR why the bus involved in the above
accident, which is registered in its name, was sporting the name "G.V. Florida" at the time of the
accident.
DOES THE LTFRB HAVE THE POWER TO SUSPEND THE FLEET OF A PUBLIC UTILITY THAT
VIOLATES THE LAW, TO THE DAMAGE OF THE PUBLIC
Petitioner contends that it is vested by law with jurisdiction to regulate the

operation of public utilities
it is authorized "[t]o issue, amend, revise, suspend or cancel Certificates of Public Convenience or
permits authorizing the operation of public land transportation services provided by motorized
vehicles, and to prescribe the appropriate terms and conditions therefor
authority to impose the penalty of suspension of CPCs of bus companies found to have committed
violations of the law is broad and is consistent with its mandate and regulatory capability.
CONTENTION: ontends that the suspension of its 28 CPCs is tantamount to an outright confiscation
of private property without due process of law;
that petitioner cannot simply ignore respondent's property rights on the pretext of promoting public
safety.
Respondent insists that the penalty imposed by petitioner is not commensurate to the infraction it
had committed.
respondent is guilty of several violations of the law,
lack of petitioner's approval of the sale and transfer of the CPC which respondent bought
from Cue;
perating the ill-fated bus under its name when the same is registered under the name of
Dagupan Bus Co., Inc.; attaching a vehicle license plate to the ill-fated bus when such plate belongs
to a different bus owned by Cue
perating the subject bus under the authority of a different CPC.
hich is tantamount to a willful and contumacious refusal to comply with the requirements of
law or of the orders, rules or regulations issued by petitioner and which is punishable, under the law,
by suspension or revocation of any of its CPCs.

Traspo LTFRB vs. GV Florida

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traspo LTFRB vs. GV Florida

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Traspo LTFRB vs. GV Florida

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB), Petitioner

Feb 7, 2014 around 7:20 in the morning

Accident occurred at bontoc mountain province

Bus involve is not duly authorized to operate public Transportation

LTFRB issues order suspending the operation of 10 buses

2. Undergo Road Safety Seminar of respondents-operators' drivers and conductors to be conducted

3. Compulsory Drug Testing of the respondents-operators' drivers and conductors to be conducted

Petitioner contends that it is vested by law with jurisdiction to regulate the

respondent is guilty of several violations of the law,

perating the subject bus under the authority of a different CPC.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.