Republic of the Philippines

Department of Transportation and Communication

LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD
Regional Office No. XI
Balusong Ave., McArthur Highway, Matina, Davao City

EVANGELINE R. TENAJEROS IRS No. 040595

Respondent,
CASE NO. COLORUM VIOLATION
(Under JAO 2014-01)
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -x

SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, and unto

this Honorable Office, respectfully moves for a reconsideration of its Decision by way of
Second Motion for Reconsideration and states that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. Respondent received a copy of this Honorable Office’s Decision dated 09

February 2018resolving that she was operating a colorum motor vehicle. The dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:

x x x

“WHEREFORE, premises considered this Office

finds respondent to have violated the provisions of Joint
Administrative Order No. 2014-01 and is hereby ordered to
pay P 200,000.00 for colorum operation. Moreover, the
unit Toyota Hiace Commuter with Temporary Plate No.
1112-327125 registered under the name of Evangeline R.
Tenajeros is hereby ordered to be continually impounded
with a minimum impounding period of three (3) months
from date of apprehension. However, the subject vehicle
hereof shall only be released upon payment of the penalty
herein imposed.

xxx

SO ORDERED.”

x x x

2. On 19 February 2018, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by

Respondent. However, it was denied in a Decision rendered by this Honorable Office.

3. Finding the said Decision to be prejudicial at some points, particularly the

penalty thereto imposed, Respondent, with the kind indulgence of this Honorable
Office, respectfully moves for a second reconsideration of its Decision based on the
following grounds:

1
 GROUNDS

I. RESPONDENT ACTED IN GOOD FAITH WHEN SHE USED THE

SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLE AS A TEMPORARY SUBSTITUTE FOR
TRANSPORTSCHOOL SERVICE ON 19 JANUARY 2018.

II. THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF GOOD FAITH, FIRST-

TIME VIOLATOR, LOSS OF SUBSTANTIAL INCOME AND
UNDERTAKING TO APPLY THE HEREIN SUBJECT MOTOR
VEHICLE FOR FRANCHISE BE TAKEN AS MEASURES FOR
MODIFICATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

Respondent acted in good faith

when she opted to use her private
motor vehicle as temporary
substitute for transport school
service on 19 January 2018.

4. In retrospect, Respondent is a grantee of a Certificate of Public

Convenience under LTFRB Case No. 2012-XI-00888 with the use of one (1) unit
bearing plate no. LGZ474, which is still valid and existing. The said franchised motor
vehicle is being used as a transport school service by Respondent for almost five (5)
years already. However, on 19 January 2018, Respondent used another motor vehicle,
her private motor vehicle bearing Temporary Plate No. 1112-327125, to fetch school
children. Unfortunately, said motor vehicle was apprehended by the authorities, and
the same was impounded to date.

5. Nevertheless, the use by Respondent of the herein subject motor vehicle

was not deliberate and there was no blatant intention on the part of Respondent to
disregard any land transportation laws against operating motor vehicle without proper
permit at that time. The use of the herein subject motor vehicle was done due to utmost
necessity and compelling reason during that time – that is, her franchised motor
vehicle has encountered sudden engine problem.

6. A careful scrutiny of the records would reveal that the franchised motor
vehicle bearing plate no. LGZ 474 has already been encountering mechanical failures
from time to time due to the sheer fact that it is already an old model, a 2011 Toyota
Grandia van. Recognizing such fact, as early as 10 January 2018, Respondent decided
to have it checked at BLBE Auto Repair Shop; thus, the repair job estimate . However, it
was only on 19 January 2018 that the subject motor vehicle was actually delivered to
the auto shop for repair due to engine problems. At the early morning of 19 January
2018, motor vehicle bearing plate no. LGZ 474 encountered serious mechanical
problem which necessitates the use of another motor vehicle to be used as temporary
substitute in fetching the school children to and fro the Ateneo de Davao University
Grade School.

7. Clearly, what transpired on 19 January 2018 was not deliberate and in

wanton disregard of the existing law as to the prohibition of use of private motor
vehicle in transporting school children without appropriate permit or authority. It was
only done on a single day with the sole purpose of solving unprecedented mechanical
problem without sacrificing the school attendance of the school children.

2
 8. To bolster more, the repair job estimate dated 10 January 2018 was a good
reference point to establish and prove that indeed, motor vehicle LGZ 474 was already
suffering engine problem prior 19 January 2018. It is but erroneous to conclude that
the said motor vehicle was already at the auto shop on 10 January 2018. The repair job
estimate was only to show what was the labor cost and repair of the subject motor
vehicle when the latter was subjected for initial checkup although it was still in its
running condition, and not to prove the fact of the date when it was actually endorsed
to the auto shop for repair and overhaul. Yet again, it was only on 19 January 2018 that
the subject motor vehicle was endorsed to the auto shop when it had encountered
engine problem, as evinced by the Certification issued by Mr. Alex J. Almario, the
proprietor of BLBE Auto Repair Shop.

9. Good faith, as enunciated in many decided cases by the Supreme Court, is

an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition,
and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absent malice and the
absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. It implies
honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put
the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity
of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim and absence of intention to overreach
another. Culled from the abovestated facts, it could then be inferred that Respondent
merely acted in good faith.

10. It was never Respondent’s deliberate intention to use the subject vehicle as
a permanent transport service vehicle to fetch the school children to and fro Ateneo de
Davao University Grade School. The subject motor vehicle was merely used on that day,
19 January 2018, due to a sudden, unanticipated engine failure of the franchised motor
vehicle bearing plate no. LGZ 474. What happened on that day was an urgent and
compelling reason for Respondent to make, as she was merely acting instantaneously,
putting her obligation of transport service to her clientele first so as not to impair the
school children’s attendance record than that of herself and risking the fact of making
herself open and vulnerable for possible violations and penalties.

11. On the other hand, Respondent tried to apply for Certificate of Public
Convenience for the subject motor vehicle on November 2017 but the same was not
granted because Respondent, at the time of her application, was struggling to cope up
with the rigid requisites of this Honorable Office for franchise application of transport
school service. Nonetheless, her failure to comply does not necessarily mean that she
operated the said motor vehicle as colorum. In fact, the Honorable Office should even
see this as an honest intention on the part of respondent – that is, her willingness to
comply with the requirements set forth by this Honorable Office insofar as franchising
for transport school services is concerned. It was only unfortunate that Respondent’s
franchise application was not granted, as her means and income would not allow her to
immediately comply with the necessary requirements. The subject motor vehicle, from
the time of denial of its application for franchise up to 19 January 2018, when the same
was apprehended and impounded, was never used by Respondent as transport school
service.

12. From all indications, what was involved here was a single, isolated case of
erroneous judgment and apparent wrongdoing on the part of Respondent for using her
private motor vehicle to fetch the school children without first reporting the same to
the Board. This, absent any proof of wanton, malicious and ill-motive on the part of
Respondent, and in light of good faith on her part, deserves a second look and
consideration of the Honorable Office.

The mitigating circumstances of

good faith, first-time violator,

3
loss of substantial income and
undertaking to apply for
Certificate of Public Convenience
should be taken by this
Honorable Office as reasonable
measures to allow modification
of the penalty imposed in its 09
February 2018 Decision.

13. For several years of operating as a grantee of a Certificate of Public

Convenience, Respondent had not encountered any problem with the Honorable Office.
In fact, this was the very first time that Respondent committed infraction and was
penalized by the Honorable Office for violation of land transportation rules and
regulations. Respondent, thus, begs the compassionate and magnanimity of the
Honorable Office to implore some leniency regarding her unintentional transgression
and prays that the penalty imposed be modified and reduced in her favor.

14. As earlier stated, the act committed by Respondent was all done in good
faith. Absent any other supporting evidence to prove otherwise aside from the self-
serving testimony of the complainant, the error committed by Respondent in a single,
isolated incident, can hardly be used to justify the inference that she has been engaged
in a series of acts evincing a pattern of operating a motor vehicle that is colorum.

15. More so, the fact of apprehension of Respondent’s private motor vehicle
severely affected her transport school service business because at the time when the
same was apprehended, her franchised motor vehicle was at the shop undergoing
repair and general overhaul due to engine problem. Because of that, some of the
students that Respondent was catering transferred to other transport school services,
as Respondent could no longer render proper transport services to them, which caused
loss of substantial income on Respondent’s part. Meanwhile, due to the very much
needed repair and overhaul of the franchised motor vehicle of Respondent, the latter
has to shell out a large sum of money to cover the expenses of the aforesaid repair and
general overhaul. These she has to bear and suffer in the span of time that this instant
case was filed before this Honorable until to date.

16. Considering that Respondent was a first-time violator, notwithstanding

the lack of ill-motive on her part, and the fact of Respondent’s acknowledgment of her
infractions and feeling of remorse, and for humanitarian and equitable considerations,
it is but apropos for this Honorable Office to extend some leniency unto the herein
Respondent.

17. Thus, under the prevailing circumstances, it is hereby humbly prayed that
the penalty of Php 200,000.00 be reduced into a lower amount of Php 100,000.00 and
that the minimum three (3) months impoundment of the subject motor vehicle be
modified and that the same be released immediately upon payment of the aforestated
reduced penalty.

18. Respondent had learned her lesson and that she undertakes to apply the
herein subject motor vehicle for Certificate of Public Convenience and to comply with
the requirements set forth by this Honorable Office.

PRAYER

4
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Office that:

1. The Decision dated 09 February 2018 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE;

2. The penalty in the amount of Php 200,000.00 be MODIFIED and REDUCED

to Php 100,000.00; and

3. The imposed minimum time of impounding Respondent’s unit Toyota

Grandia GL Van bearing Temporary Plate No. 1112-327125 for three (3)
months be SET ASIDE and that the same be RELEASED upon immediate
payment of the reduced penalty.

Other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise
prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In the City of Davao, this ____________.

LUMBATAN, CABADING, LAYOG & PINTO LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Respondents
LUMBATAN LAW
Door G-10, Genesis88 Arcade,
Eco West Drive, Ecoland, Davao City
Telefax No. (082) 296-4114
[email protected]

By:

KAREN CATE I. PINTO

IBP No. 025509-01/08/18-Davao City
PTR No. 9734954-12/27/17- Davao City
Roll of Attorney No. 70440
MCLE Compliance [NOT YET REQUIRED]

5
Republic of the Philippines]
In the City of Davao. . . . . . ]s.s.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, EVANGELINE R. TENAJEROS, of legal age, Filipino, and is a resident of
Davao City, Philippines, after having sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and state that:

1. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of the foregoing Second Motion for
Reconsideration; have read and understood the contents thereof, and attest that the
facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and/or authentic
documents;

3. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;

4. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is

pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency. If I
should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending
before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I
undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature below this

_____________ in Davao City, Philippines.                                                                                  

EVANGELINE R. TENAJEROS
Affiant
Competent Evidence of Identity: ____________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _________________ at

Davao City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her competent evidence of identity first
above-written.

Doc. No. ___;

Page No. ___;
Book No.___;
Series of 2018.