service vehicle demand by other party due to accident

[Gen1]

ang problema lang sa kano, sobrand demanding. not only for this particular incident but more of that's his character. Kaya ang dami na siyang kaaway sa subdivision. He is in a wheelchair not because he is a cripple but he is soo huge, plus asthma, he has a hard time to move around.

Curious nga ako if he does sue, and if he does win, I can use this as basis the next time someone bumps my car.

unahan lang sa sindak yan. huwag ka pa-sindak, bluff lang yan. If he really has only one vehicle, he needs to have that van repaired quickly. It is to your advantage to let the case drag.

Since he's married to a pinay, he's probably a bigot and thinks pinoys still swing from tree to tree and pinays are ***ual playthings cum maids.

from I were you I'd let him sue. For small property damage suit like that the matagal yan bago ma-schedule ang hearing. baka patay na yung ogag bago magsimula ang mga hearing.

(Sa tate ang pangit na ng trato ng mga ogag na yan sa atin, pati ba naman sa pinas papayagan natin silang maghari-harian . . . )

[reaganyun]

Agree with Gen1. d dapat payagan maGHARIAHARIAN ANG MGA YAN, MASYADO NIYA NILALAIT ANG MGA PINOY, ALAM MO MAY KASABIHIN ANG PIKON GUILTY

[take1bar]

On humanitarian reason it is an act of disgrace and unhuman to charge/deduct to the wage of security guard the expense incurred in the repair of the said starex, his guilt is not yet established,much the security guard is merely earning a very minimal wage, aside during the said incident he is in the performance of his regular duties to manned the safety of subdivisions. Magkaroon naman tayo consideration sa tao hindi coinsideration.

There is no probative value to based our arguments on the statements of others to qoute: "some witnesses say he wasn't looking where he was going" unless you are also there, then your statement will be given credebility otherwise your arguments will be a discredit, it is basic that declaration gather on the statememnt by other is inadmissble in evidence for it is merely hearsay information. For per usal mere non posession of phil driving license does not summarily conclude that the non holder thereof is the proximate cause of the accident, other consideration must be taken and look upon. The thread is not clear whether the alien may also be not looking at the proper way, if his eyes is on the way he might have the last clear chance of avoiding the said peril. The drivers license of the alien must be look upon also, if his sojourn in the philippines already exceed the allowed time limit by the Land Transportation Code then he must secure a Philipine Drivers License before he be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

If i am the subdivsion owner, i'll fight to court the alien, there is no basis in law and fact to demand for a service vehicle, ano siya VIP! He is not a first class citizen! In the first place the fault of their employee is not been clearly established. In court of law, like in this cases when the guilt of the party was not proven then each one will bear their own costs and damages. I respectfully submit that this will be a very good case for the secuirty guard and subdivison owner, you can file a counter charge against the alien for filing a civil case which totally lack cause of action and for filing a criminal negligence which totally lack probable cause. You can also charge the alien for malicious prosecution and to those who wil testify falsely in his favor will be charge of false testimony.

[niky]

A US license can be used to drive in the Philippines for about six months. Afterwards, it's quite easy to get a local license based on that.

I am not the one who established fault, nor am I claiming anyone is at fault It was the homeowners association that accepted the responsibility and offered to shoulder the expenses.

Operation of a motor vehicle on Philippine roads without a license is already a legal offense, depending on whether the judge considers subdivision roads "public" (it's still a matter of debate, witness the tiff BF Homes is having with the local government in their area). But if the facts of the case are that the person is driving without a license, and said driver was coming from a side street, the judgement would usually go to the licensed driver on the main thoroughfare, as, by law, vehicles on the main road have right of way.

Sure, the American is a jerk, but the odds are in his favor if culpability is to be assessed in court.

BUT, as there is no law requiring the party at fault to provide a service vehicle to the aggrieved party, then he's not going to get more than what he's getting now... which is full coverage of the expenses incurred in repairing said vehicle.

It's just whether the association chooses to rent him a service vehicle out of the kindness of its collective hearts... but if the guy himself doesn't have any, why give in? Magdusa siya.

[tsupermario]

imho

assuming that the guard really does not need a license in order to drive because the area where the accident happened is private property, still he may be held liable. the basis of the suit would be tort or negligence, and the allegation is that he was negligent in driving the motor vehicle causing damages to a 3rd party. it will be the judge who will determine whether the guard is really liable. if he is liable and he cannot pay, vicarious liability may be enforced. btw under the law, a person involved in a vehicular accident and was driving without a license is presumed to be negligent.

re the actual damages, the insurance will pay for the damage done on the vehicle but will not cover the rentals that the american will pay in case he rents a vehicle. for the rentals spent, the american can still include it as actual damages in his lawsuit.

[take1bar]

I dont think so that the rental the kano will spent will be ever consider as an actual damages. In the first place such is not a pecuniary loss suffered by him. If the kano will claim it as an actual damages then such claim is flimsy and unsubstantial. To uphold the kano's claim is giving him the privilege and recognition of his claim to provide him a service vehicle for the entire duration until his starex is out of the repair house. Not everyhting you prayed for in your complaint is to be granted like a miracle, and sometimes prayer does not come. He must shop for other form of damages, if any. However, I maintain my theory of the case that this kano has absolutely no single cause of action whatsoever.

[isketi]

This is the problem with us Filipino, lets be fair with our race and be not biased and immediately side with alien, unless your an alien from pluto. Are you?

GANON BA SOBRA YABANG NG KANO, HOPE OTHER ALIEN WILL NOT BE LIKE HIM KALA NILA ESTATES PA ITO AT FIRST CLASS CITIZEN CLA, LOOK AT THE VFA GI AND OTHER UNDOCUMENTED CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED BY THIS GI

Agree with Gen1. d dapat payagan maGHARIAHARIAN ANG MGA YAN, MASYADO NIYA NILALAIT ANG MGA PINOY, ALAM MO MAY KASABIHIN ANG PIKON GUILTY

Balimbing! :hysterical:

[take1bar]

I may not agree with what you said but i'll fight to death what you have said. Is the Philipine law on criminal negligence been amended? If Amended, when? and who amend it? or we have a good senator speaking in this thread?

Vehicles on the main road does not have the right of way. There is nothing in RA 4136 states so. Unless we have a good senator here that unilaterally declares soo. The Aplicable provision states "That nothing in this subsection shall be construed as relieving the driver of any vehicle being operated on a through highway from the duty of driving with due regard for the safety of vehicles entering such through highway or as protecting the said driver from the consequence of an arbitrary exercise of such right of way".

Based on the foregoing to claim that the kano has the right of way is very baseless and wishful thinking. Each facts of the case is to be determine under its proper perspective. The appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer must be given considerable weight in evaluating the true facts and merit of the case.

[A121]

ang sa akin lang, malas lang po nila sir altec dahil maraming hinihingi yung naagrabyado ng tauhan nila. ang pinakamagandang gawin na lang ay makipag-usap ng maayos na lang dun sa kano.

[niky]

I may not agree with what you said but i'll fight to death what you have said. Is the Philipine law on criminal negligence been amended? If Amended, when? and who amend it? or we have a good senator speaking in this thread?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Apparently, you seem hell bent on fighting to the death absolutely everything I have to say. Are you a secret admirer, perhaps?

Vehicles on the main road does not have the right of way. There is nothing in RA 4136 states so. Unless we have a good senator here that unilaterally declares soo. The Aplicable provision states "That nothing in this subsection shall be construed as relieving the driver of any vehicle being operated on a through highway from the duty of driving with due regard for the safety of vehicles entering such through highway or as protecting the said driver from the consequence of an arbitrary exercise of such right of way".

Based on the foregoing to claim that the kano has the right of way is very baseless and wishful thinking. Each facts of the case is to be determine under its proper perspective. The appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer must be given considerable weight in evaluating the true facts and merit of the case.

Well, I was under the impression that the driver on the smaller road is obliged to give way to the driver on the through highway... excuse me, apparently it's only applicable to drivers coming from a private road or driveway onto a public highway, not from a private side road onto a private main.

But then again, in legal proceedings, the testimony of impartial eyewitnesses always carry weight. Here's one question, altec, where on the vehicle is the damage? If the Starex was struck upon the side by the motorbike, then the findings may go in favor of the 'Kano, as you are supposed to yield the right of way to a vehicle that reaches the intersection first, and it may be interpreted as meaning he did.

But if it was a frontal collision, depending on witnesses and evidence, it may go the way of the guard, but again, non-possession of a license is something the judge may choose to consider or ignore, as it is a seperate offense, but it often weighs upon the case, anyway.

A friend was charged by the family of a motorcycle rider who hit his car and died. The judge took one look at the boy's record (three priors and no current license) and threw the case out.

----

Of course, the point at which you started arguing the case, the humanitarian aspect... the security agency already agreed to pay the participation fee and deduct it from the guard's paycheck. It was the reasonable thing to do, given that the evidence available to the homeowner's association seemingly pointed to the guard being at fault. Again, this wasn't from me.

And no, I don't wish the case to go against him because he's Pinoy. Being half-Pinoy half-American, I think I'm just a little bit more impartial than you. Whether the person is a poor security guard, jeepney driver, tricycle driver or bus driver, or a senator, congressman, diplomat or foreigner, if they're at fault, they should live up to it.

----

Wishful thinking? Are you suggesting I want the guy to win? I thought lawyers were supposed to present facts and not draw conclusions without solid evidence for such?...

And since when did I become a senator? Carlocaraddict keeps calling me "congressman"... since my term isn't up till the elections, no way can I be a Senator yet...