service vehicle demand by other party due to accident

[Airwalk]

meh, palagay ko an IP block is needed. :outcold:

naaaahhh, lets give him more time to make a fool of himself :hysterical:

[Gen1]

ahhhh. . . away na, away . . . suntukan na . . . (he, he, biro lang )

sir altec, ano na nga ba nangyari sa kaso?

nangyari na sa akin ang ganyan, na aksidente ang tao ko sa may luneta gamit ang luma kong L300. tumawag sa akin ang nakabanggaan humihingi ng danyos para sa pantaksi habang nasa talyer ang auto nya (may own damage coverage auto nya) .

sabi ko "hindi pwede ser, wala kaming budget para dyan". sagot nya maghabla raw siya. kaya balik ko sa kanya "sige ser". hindi na tumawag ulit ang mokong (at wala ring demandahan).

kung bago-bago pa ang sasakyan ni kano may own damage coverage yan. kung gusto mong maging maginoo dahil mali talaga ang sikyu, sagutin nyo na lang ang deductible ni kanoto o padalhan mo na lang ng keyk. suggestion lang naman. . .

[mazdamazda]

opps you comitted so many violations. just a reminder
BEhavior II.2 attacking anyone behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner- imagine he consider this freedom and exhnage of though as an act of bickering
II.4 posts- your posts does not contribute to the welfare and good of the community, imagine an alien can operate a motor vehicle for more than 90 days, to say 6 months. without securing a phil drivers license
II.6 You will not use these forums to violate any laws nor to discuss illegal activities

maabangan nga kung ano action gagawin

So you have just read Tsikot's Rules & Regulations?

The problem is that you have used it out of context by still lingering on the issue that Niky made a mistake of stating 90 days instead of 6 months. Niky has already apologized for the said mistake and as I have said it is not a big issue since based on the facts presented it is irrelevant since we had not established if the said foreigner is the one driving the van.

May quote this as a response to your post:

9) You will, if asked by a representative of the Forums, cease posting any content, and/or links to content, deemed offensive, objectionable, or in poor taste by the staff of the Forums.

- Violation of the above will be subject to appropriate action by the tsikot.com management.

- The tsikot.com management reserves the right to amend the above rules without prior notice.

[altec]

Sorry mga peeps, nagbiyahe kasi ako and didn't have time to get internet access. Wow, ang daming fireworks. To clear some of these things out:

1. It was the pinay wife that drove the car, not the kano. But the starex is registered under the name of the kano husband.

2. No police report because the police said that they normally don't cover private roads in the subdivision. But pwede rin. If we insist to file a police report due to a vehicular accident leading to body injury, pwede, but only to discover that they will imprison the guard for driving without a license, so we didn't force the issue.

3. The pinay wife also didn't file a police report because the police also told them they don't cover private roads. So they filed a report with the barangay.

4. Early last week, the wife suddenly sent someone to the subdivision administrator where the check payment for the supposed own damage claim was prepared but they previously refused to accept as the husband was playing hardball, insisting on the service vehicle replacement. Ok na daw siya to accept the check payment, but wanted it put in her name, instead of the husband's. They also signed an affidavit that the subdivision lawyer made, citing that the starex and the motorcycle collided at one of the intersection of the subdivision, but no mention of whose fault. Both spouses also signed the quit claim that the lawyer made, that both the guard and the subdivision will not be held liable for any future claims.

5. The spouses demanded a copy of the motorcycle OR/CR as part of the insurance's requirement. Upon consultation with the lawyer, the lawyer agreed to releasing the copy, kasi daw kung gugustuhin nila, they can go to the LTO and get a copy anyway. Though one of the lawyer/homeowner who is a member of the board said huwag na daw yung affidavit, at huwag daw ibigay ang OR/CR to avoid any possible complications. But the retainer lawyer says the quit claim would cover such issue. Anyway, it wasn't stated anywhere that the spouses will turn around and claim it with the insurance, so that the insurance can demand payment from us as well. How they make use of the money given to them, bahala na sila. The insurance, Malayan, is notorious kasi to run after the other party, and is notorious to making life difficult for anyone who claims against them unless with the blessing of the policy owner.

The problem now is that when we had the affidavit and quit claim (both signed by the spouses) notarized, the notarizing lawyer says the spouses has to be present personally to sign their ledger/log book and thumb print as it is the law now. So ang suggestion is to borrow the logbook, bring it to the home of the spouses, and have them sign the logbook. The question is, will they sign the logbook! They already received the check payment.

By the way, I heard nag away ang mag asawa because of this issue. The husband may relocate back to the US. The kano wanted to insist on his side, the wife just wanted it finished.

[wren]

objection!!! sorry, i just felt like saying that...kasi parang nasa court na tayo eh.

[Imau]

order in da cort, order in da cort. all rise! announcing the arrival of the late honorabol judge raul gonzales....sori the honorabol judge was late becos op di trafik...

[reaganyun]

im not only hearing silence.
im also smelling something fishy.
im having a sneaky suspicion on the way how things are runs.

[Alpha_One]

im not only hearing silence.
im also smelling something fishy.
im having a sneaky suspicion on the way how things are runs.

*Breaks silence* :lol: :hysterical: :laughbounce:

Seriously man. You have every right to be suspicious on how the ways things are runs. We can't take that away from you. But I must remind you that the URL's Tsikot.com and not CIA.gov or anything.

[reaganyun]

i always believe in free thought and speech as a means to better end, however. it seems as in politics, the exercise of such rights will be the beginning of end, unless such right was exercise in the taste and likeness of the inner circle and their protective comprador, then you are within the protective circle no matter what is the swing of tide.

ohmmm very sniky

[Alpha_One]

Taking some Yoda-ese lessons, eh.

I don't want to repeat my sermon on the D4D thread about how Internet forums work. So I'll put it simply, frankly, and bluntly.

This is not a free-for-all forum. This is not the government. There is no such thing as free speech.

No, you're right. There is free speech, but only exercised "in the taste and likeness of the inner circle and their protective comprador". This is after all, a private forum open for public viewing, but it does require that you register and conform to the rules in order to post. Rules of course, may include arbitrary stuff judged by this forum's independent moderators and administrators. You should know that of all people, after all you did tick the "I Agree" box when you registered. It's been a while since I read that agreement. Nothing political, it's all pre-agreed upon explicitly between the management and the members upon registration (well, people can supposedly read). You're probably not going to believe me, but honestly I'm as much under the mercy of the mods and admins as you are. Anyway if you don't like how this forum is run, I have no idea why you "agreed" in the first place. Well may I suggest another forum, maybe a free-for-all one. You can bash us there all you like.

P.S. Nothing sniky here. People complain of contracts being heavily biased against them, but hey, who signed it in the first place?!