Simple—the law says so. Our laws presume that the vehicle being driven by someone is also the one who owns the car. Our law on agency says that the registered owner may delegate another to operate his vehicle. This applies to those who are engaged in the public utility vehicle service.
What if another driver is using a car that is not the registered vehicle’s owner? Under our laws, the registered owner is responsible for whatever happens to his vehicle. Yet, our transport laws penalize the “driver” operating the vehicle. So, how do we reconcile these two principles?
Again it’s simple– under the laws of the agency, the driver of a vehicle who is not the registered owner is presumed to be driving for and on behalf of the owner, such as in the case of taxi drivers. This explains why in accidents involving PUV drivers, the operator is jointly responsible for expenses and fines related to the traffic infraction.
Under our laws, the operator is not solidarily responsible but is in joint responsibility with his driver. PUV operators must give their share every time their drivers commit violations. In such incidences, there must be an internal arrangement between the driver and the operator.
The argument that the driver is solely responsible only applies when registered owners operate the vehicle at the time of the infraction. Question– what if the car or vehicle has already been sold to another yet, for varied reasons, transfer of ownership was not undertaken immediately? Well, such cases must be elevated to the traffic adjudication boards that assume jurisdiction over traffic-related claims.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO PUT OUR FEET DOWN AND DISINCENTIVIZE DRIVERS AND OPERATORS OF PUBLIC UTILITY VEHICLES WHO, IN THE PAST, PAY THEIR WAY OUT OF MESSY SITUATIONS, SUCH AS TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS. I MEAN, COME ON!
We have been accustomed to seeing motorists pay their way thru bribery. Such acts become practices that we now see as “common” and, therefore, become part of “culture.” We should erase norms like these from the public consciousness by structuring our system in such as way as to lessen human intervention when it comes to violations of rules and laws.
Local Government Units designed the no contact apprehension program to help us transition into a more effective, efficient, and intervention-less system. Some of those who oppose the NCAP says it lacks “consideration.” Of course, you dummy, that’s a computer-aided technology you’re talking about! If we want a more ordered society, I.T. or digitalization is the way. We always demand fairness, and when such a program comes our way, we concoct excuses and alibis when such a program affects our interests. Come on!
