Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 500 views

    LTFRB Vs GV Florida

    Uploaded by

    Paris Valencia
    The LTFRB suspended the 28 existing CPCs of G.V. Florida Transport after a public utility bus accident resulted in deaths and injuries. An investigation found the plate number of the bus involved belonged to a different bus owned by Norberto Que. It was also discovered the bus was registered under Dagupan Bus, and G.V. Florida was just preparing to transfer CPCs from Dagupan Bus according to their agreement. However, G.V. Florida was found guilty of violations including operating buses without LTFRB approval of sold/transferred CPCs and licenses. The Court ruled the LTFRB has the power to suspend CPCs when holders violate laws and regulations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LTFRB Vs GV Florida

    Uploaded by

    Paris Valencia
    500 views2 pages
    The LTFRB suspended the 28 existing CPCs of G.V. Florida Transport after a public utility bus accident resulted in deaths and injuries. An investigation found the plate number of the bus involved belonged to a different bus owned by Norberto Que. It was also discovered the bus was registered under Dagupan Bus, and G.V. Florida was just preparing to transfer CPCs from Dagupan Bus according to their agreement. However, G.V. Florida was found guilty of violations including operating buses without LTFRB approval of sold/transferred CPCs and licenses. The Court ruled the LTFRB has the power to suspend CPCs when holders violate laws and regulations.

    Original Description:

    Case file

    Original Title

    LTFRB vs GV Florida

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The LTFRB suspended the 28 existing CPCs of G.V. Florida Transport after a public utility bus accident resulted in deaths and injuries. An investigation found the plate number of the bus involved belonged to a different bus owned by Norberto Que. It was also discovered the bus was registered under Dagupan Bus, and G.V. Florida was just preparing to transfer CPCs from Dagupan Bus according to their agreement. However, G.V. Florida was found guilty of violations including operating buses without LTFRB approval of sold/transferred CPCs and licenses. The Court ruled the LTFRB has the power to suspend CPCs when holders violate laws and regulations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    500 views2 pages

    LTFRB Vs GV Florida

    Uploaded by

    Paris Valencia
    The LTFRB suspended the 28 existing CPCs of G.V. Florida Transport after a public utility bus accident resulted in deaths and injuries. An investigation found the plate number of the bus involved belonged to a different bus owned by Norberto Que. It was also discovered the bus was registered under Dagupan Bus, and G.V. Florida was just preparing to transfer CPCs from Dagupan Bus according to their agreement. However, G.V. Florida was found guilty of violations including operating buses without LTFRB approval of sold/transferred CPCs and licenses. The Court ruled the LTFRB has the power to suspend CPCs when holders violate laws and regulations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LTFRB vs. G.V. Florida Transport (G.R. No.

    213088; June 28, 2017)

    FACTS:
    A vehicular accident involving a public utility bus resulted to death and injuries of several
    passengers. It appears upon investigation that the plate number of the said bus actually belongs
    to a different bus owned and registered under the name of a certain Norberto Que and under
    his Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC).Upon further investigation, it was found out that the
    said bus was indeed registered under the name of Dagupan bus, and the previous owner was
    Norberto Que. According to Dagupan bus, the owner of such bus was G.V. Florida, and such
    registration under its name is just a preparatory act of old authorized units of Dagupan Bus, in
    relation to their agreement which facilitated the exchange of its CPC. On his part, Que alleged
    that his CPC and bus units were sold to G.V. Florida and that the plate number of the old bus
    was used by the latter to the new units. The petitioner LTFRB on its decision, imposed the
    penalty of suspension for 6 months, all existing 28 CPC of respondent G.V. Florida.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Land Transportation Franchise and Regulatory Board has the power to
    suspend the CPC of the respondent G.V. Florida.

    RULING:
    YES. The Court ruled that Section 16(n) of Commonwealth Act. No. 146, otherwise known as the
    Public Service Act, provides:

    Section 16. Proceedings of the Commission, upon notice and hearing. - The Commission shall
    have power, upon proper notice and hearing in accordance with the rules and provisions of this
    Act, subject to the limitations and exceptions mentioned and saving provisions to the contrary:

    xxxx

    (n) To suspend or revoke any certificate issued under the provisions of this Act whenever the
    holder thereof has violated or willfully and contumaciously refused to comply with any order,
    rule or regulation of the Commission or any provision of this Act: Provided, That the
    Commission, for good cause, may prior to the hearing suspend for a period not to exceed thirty
    days any certificate or the exercise of any right or authority issued or granted under this Act by
    order of the Commission, whenever such step shall in the judgment of the Commission be
    necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage or inconvenience to the public or to private
    interests.

    xxxx

    Also, Section 5(b) of E.O. 202 states:

    Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. The
    Board shall have the following powers and functions:
    Also, Section 5(b) of E.O. 202 states:
    Sec. 5. Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. The
    Board shall have the following powers and functions:
    xxxx
    b. To 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;
    xxxx

    In the present case, respondent is guilty of several violations of the law, to wit: lack of
    petitioner's approval of the sale and transfer of the CPC which respondent bought from Cue;
    operating 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; and operating the subject bus under the authority of a
    different CPC. What makes matters worse is that respondent knowingly and blatantly
    committed these violations.

    You might also like