Is this a new LTO - MMDA modus operandi?

[mazzipino]

Hmmm this modus is worrying.

Any updates on this? Still on-going?

Is there a way to find out muna if I have any violations/apprehentions before renewing?

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Kahit P150 lang ang fine, I won't pay for it.

[red16]

Hmmm this modus is worrying.

Any updates on this? Still on-going?

Is there a way to find out muna if I have any violations/apprehentions before renewing?

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. Kahit P150 lang ang fine, I won't pay for it.

lalo lang KAKAPAL ANG MGA MUKHA NILA at ano tingin nila sating mga motorista...?? Engot's !

[dovinyae]

A friend of mine spent the night to settle this BS with MMDA. He works and lives in Pampanga. He asked me if I had any idea about this so I searched online. Nakaka-gulat kasi ang dami palang ganito.

I advised him not to pay anything if he was not previously apprehended for any violation. Grabe na to. Bukod sa pagkamahal mahal na drug test at kung ano ano pa, ito pa idadagdag nila?

Sino kayang demonyo nagpakana nito.

Guys update naman. Maraming mahihirapan pag nagpatuloy ito.

[mazzipino]

How do we contest these magic tickets?

Is there any way to not pay the magic fines and renew our licenses?

Because I remember an incident when I got pulled over for "swerving" - but it really wasn't swerving and the TE was trying to get some breakfast money, so after debating it with him he let me go. But I also remember that when we were debating the incident he had a look at my licence and was writing something on a piece of paper. Maybe he was taking my name and licence # down and issuing me with a magic fine

[claRkEnt]

as i mentioned in my previous posts, there's actually no need for them to get your name or your DL #... specially if you had heated arguments with these TEs. All that's necessary for this money-making scheme is the plate number (you're in bad luck if that plate number is registered in your name).

The question is why MMDA/LTO office would honor and record such TE Reports. Necessary talaga dapat na signed ng apprehended driver and tickets. Otherwise, walang violation kasi di acknowledged.

[gadzooks]

Maybe he was taking my name and licence # down and issuing me with a magic fine

Yes, that's exactly what they do. It then entitles them to a commission (as per MMDA policy) on the ticket issued without your knowledge but which you will later find out about when you go in for your driver's license renewal.

[gadzooks]

The question is why MMDA/LTO office would honor and record such TE Reports. Necessary talaga dapat na signed ng apprehended driver and tickets. Otherwise, walang violation kasi di acknowledged.

The MMDA is hiding behind its No-contact Apprehension policy set up in 2002. This policy was later declared illegal by the Makati RTC in 2005 and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 2008. These decisions did not affect the MMDA's behavior which continues to implement No-contact Apprehension in defiance of our courts.

[gadzooks]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 134

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,
Petitioner,


- versus - CIVIL CASE NO.10-1015
FOR: Mandamus, Prohibition
and Declaratory Judgment
(With prayer for issuance of
Temporary Retraining Order
[T.R.O.] and/or MANDATORY
Preliminary Injunction)


THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
(LTO) AND THE METRO MANILA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMDA),
Respondents.
x================================x

Manifestation with Omnibus Motion




The Petitioner, by the undersigned counsel, reiterating his arguments given in open court at today’s scheduled hearing, most respectfully states that:

1. As he had articulated in open court in today’s hearing (December 10, 2010), he has seen a copy of the “Comment” filed, supposedly, by PUBLIC respondent, MMDA, from his examination of the records of this case in the morning before the start of the hearing. For purposes of clarification, however, he has NOT yet received and he does NOT yet have a copy thereof. He reserves all his rights and waives none insofar as filing an appropriate “Reply” thereto -- but only if still warranted -- given his vehement objections to the admission of the said Comment as part of the records of this case. As further explained below, he respectfully moves that the said Comment be denied and/or treated as “a mere scrap of paper.”

2. Likewise, and also from his examination of the records of this case, he discovered that the PUBLIC respondent LTO, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a further motion for extension of time to file “Answer/Comment” until December 7, 2010. For purposes of clarification, however, he has NOT yet received a copy thereof. More importantly, however, it appears from the records that NO “Answer/Comment” was filed by LTO despite the lapse of time allowed unto LTO (and, after all, this instant Petition was filed on October 11, 2010 or two months earlier and the OSG has already begged this Honorable Court for an extension of time to file its responsive pleading no less than THREE times already). Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil procedure, the LTO is deemed in default:

Sec. 3. Default; declaration of. If the defending party fails to answer within the time allowed therefor, the court shall, upon motion of the claiming party with notice to the defending party, and proof of such failure, declare the defending party in default. Thereupon, the court shall proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant, unless the court in its discretion requires the claimant to submit evidence. Such reception of evidence may be delegated to the clerk of court.

It bears stressing that the LTO, through the OSG, was already issued summons and required to attend today’s hearing but it also did not appear at today’s hearing and no reasonable explanation has been given for such absence.

3. In addition, petitioner humbly contends, however, that the MMDA also failed to file its “Answer/Comment” within the reglementary period because the “Comment” allegedly filed with this Honorable Court by the MMDA was filed under the signature of a private law firm whose services appears to have been retained by the MMDA (not the OSG). To recall, this instant case seeks the strict enforcement of the “rule of law” as opposed to the “rule of (entrenched) men,” and under these self-same premises, the engagement of a private law firm by MMDA, as far as petitioner understands it, is highly anomalous and irregular and barred by the rules.

4. Petitioner does not dispute that the MMDA, just as any other public (or private) corporation, “may sue and be sued” in the exercise of its proprietary functions. Therein lies the rub that the MMDA evidently misses and/or fails to see, whether wittingly or unwittingly. In this instant DECLARATORY RELIEF suit, the PUBLIC respondent MMDA is NOT being sued by the Petitioner in consequence of the exercise of its PROPRIETARY functions. As declared and quoted in paragraph 5 of the instant petition:

“xxx 5. Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, the Office of the Solicitor General is furnished with a copy of the instant Petition and duly notified hereof. xxx.”


5. In this DECLARATORY RELIEF action, and pursuant to Section 1, Rule 63, supra, petitioner is humbly asking this Honorable Court “to determine (questions) of construction or validity arising” from “a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation” which affects his rights and, for this purpose, petitioner institutes this action so that the Honorable Court may rule and issue “a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.”

Section 1. Who may file petition.Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.


Based on the foregoing, Section 3, Rule 63 cited above the OSG is required to be notified by the party assailing the same AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD UPON SUCH QUESTION.

Sec. 3. Notice on Solicitor General.In any action which involves the validity of a statute, executive order or regulation, or any other governmental regulation, the Solicitor General shall be notified by the party assailing the same and shall be entitled to be heard upon such question.

[gadzooks]

6. In a direct attack on the constitutionality, legitimacy or validity of any statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation issued by any government agency, which include BOTH public respondents LTO and/or MMDA, such as it is in the instant case, and considering further that under the 1987 Administrative Code of the Philippines the OSG is the principal counsel of the government, Petitioner posits that it is only the OSG, or its duly authorized or deputized representatives, who might lawfully or regularly appear before this Honorable Court in order to be heard upon such question, not a private law firm, and specially NOT one “deputized” merely by MMDA because, under the rules, it is only the OSG who may deputize, if it so desires, a private lawyer on contractual basis. After all, as in this case, the OSG had already entered its appearance for LTO and there is the presumption that both MMDA and LTO will share the same defenses so that having two (2) different lawyers mounting the same defenses for two (2) different government agencies implies a needless waste of taxpayer’s monies (and both petitioner and undersigned counsel are offended by any such profligacy being themselves taxpayers). OR, it may well be that the ONLY other reason that MMDA might engage a lawyer of its own choosing, in this case, a private law firm at that, is that the OSG does NOT support the position of the MMDA. Sadly, neither the petitioner nor the Honorable Court would know for sure what the legal position of the LTO, through the OSG, would have been given that it is now “in default.” But, then again, it also implies that the OSG simply opted not to file any answer because, ultimately, the actions of the MMDA (and the LTO in support of MMDA) are legally infirm and indefensible.

“In providing the legal representation for the Government, the Solicitor General is provided with vast array of powers, which includes the power to retain and compensate lawyers on contractual basis, necessary to fulfill his sworn duty with the end in view of upholding the interest of the Government. xxx

“The (OSG) possesses the UNEQUIVOCAL mandate to appear for the Government in legal proceedings, xxx.

“The (OSG) is the principal counsel for the National Power Corporation, and as such, the Solicitor General is the party entitled to be furnished copies of orders, notices and decisions. The deputized special attorney has NO legal authority ti decide whether or not an appeal should be made.” (National Power Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 272 SCRA 704).


“The Solicitor General may take a position adverse and contrary to that of the Government on the reasoning that it is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to a client’s position.” (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 586 [1998]).


7. Petitioner concedes that this Honorable Court issued an Order that it dictated in open court today allowing the private law firm “Kintanar Jamon Parungo & Ladia Law Office” to show proof and/or justify its appearance in this action for and in behalf of the public respondent MMDA within 15 days counted from today. With due respect, Petitioner filed the instant “Manifestation with Omnibus Motion” merely to further clarify and bolster its arguments at today’s hearing.

8. However, and with all due respect, a final word (but without necessarily or as yet submitting a Reply to the MMDA’s would-be Comment): part of the reasons why the hearing on petitioner’s application for preliminary injunction and/or preliminary mandatory injunction had been allowed to be reset for several times is to allow the parties, with the end in view of helping to de-clog the Court’s dockets, the opportunity to amicably thresh out the issues in this case. With due respect, neither public respondent has exhibited any openness or willingness to amicably thresh out the issues in this case and, as a matter of fact, in its proffered but highly irregular and unauthorized Comment, the MMDA has attached a third traffic violation ticket (TVR) allegedly issued against petitioner that nowhere bears the signature of petitioner. By showing a third TVR, the MMDA implies that it is insisting that petitioner still undergo a seminar requirement aside from payment of separate fines for the 3 tickets. In order to explain and justify its third TVR, MMDA, in its proffered but highly irregular and unauthorized Comment, invokes a supposedly long standing “NO CONTACT APPREHENSION” policy. The MMDA grossly misrepresents and/or has submitted a falsehood before this Honorable Court the truth of the matter being that (as admitted by MMDA in Abbex “C: of the Petition) this Honorable Regional Trial Court of Makati City through Branch 145 (in a Decision in Civil Case No. 05-036 and penned by Hon. Judge Cesar D. Santamaria on May 3, 2005), already determined that, among others, the MMDA’s “No Physical Contact Policy” per MMDA Memorandum Circular No. 02-49 as NULL AND VOID for having been issued in violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. This RTC-Makati City Branch 145 Decision (May 3, 2005) was AFFIRMED by the Honorable Court of Appeals (14th Division) in its Decision promulgated on June 5, 2008 speaking though Madam Justice Gonzales-Sison (CA-G.R. CV No. 85438) from which NO appeal or further action was pursued by MMDA. This is the case law that is now binding against MMDA, no more, no less.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, Petitoner respectfully prays that the public respondent LTO be declared “in default” for its inexplicable and unreasonable failure to file its responsive pleading within the reglementary period and also within the extensions of time allowed therefore, and that the “Comment” filed, supposedly, for public respondent MMDA by the private law firm “Kintanar Jamon Parungo & Ladia Law Office” be denied admission as part of the records of this case and, consequently, that MMDA similarly be declared “in default” for the same reasons as should LTO.

Additionally, petitioner moves, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPARENT OPPOSITION THERETO BY THE GOVERNMENT, inspite of the lapse of two (2) months since the filing of the instant petition, that a preliminary injunction be immediately issued in his favor preventing or barring either MMDA and/or LTO from requiring the petitioner to attend a seminar requirement imposed, solely and exclusively, by then MMDA Chairman Judge Oscar Inocentes (retired) as a pre-condition to the renewal or reinstatement of his driver’s license and, furthermore, that a preliminary mandatory injunction likewise be also urgently issued commanding the LTO to allow the immediate renewal or reinstatement of petitioner’s driver’s license following the simple and plain requirements of Section 26 of R.A. No. 4136, “An Act To Compile The Laws Relative To Land Transportation And Traffic Rules, To Create A Land Transportation Commission And For Other Purposes,” otherwise known as “The Land Transportation and Traffic Code,” i.e. the payment of the required fees and the presentation of the previously issued valid driver’s license, and, in this particular case, WITHOUT the payment of fines or penalties or surcharges for alleged late renewal of his driver’s license.

[gadzooks]

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for which may include requiring the petitioner to post a bond with this Honorable Court equivalent only to the amount of supposed fines owing to MMDA, if at all.

Mandaluyong City, for Makati City, 10 December 2010.

Orosa Blanco & Ureta Law Offices

Counsel for Petitioner

Unit 306, 3rd Floor Jafer Place
19 Eisenhower Street, Greenhills,
San Juan City 1504 Metro Manila Philippines

Telephone Nos. (632)724-7211 and 725-0601

Telefax [Atty. MGUreta - personal]: (632) 844-1309

Email [Atty. MGUreta - personal]: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Skype [Atty. MGUreta – personal]: attymikeureta

By:

MICHAEL G. URETA

PTR No. 5914245/ January 6, 2010/Pasig City

IBP LIFETIME Roll No. 04837/ June 19, 2003/Aklan

Roll of Attorneys No. 39016

MCLE Compliance Certificate No III-00003914 (June 15, 2009)

NOTICE OF HEARING & COPY FURNISHED TO:


The BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
RTC-Makati City Br. 134

G R E E T I N G S.

Please submit the foregoing Omnibus Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon its receipt hereof.

Orosa Blanco & Ureta Law Offices

Counsel for Petitioner

By:

MICHAEL G. URETA

COPY FURNISHED TO

(By Hand)
KINTANAR JAMON PARUNGO & LADIA
Suite 11-b, Belvedere Tower San Miguel Avenue
Ortigas Center, Pasig City

(By Hand)
The SOLICITOR GENERAL
The Office of the Solicitor General
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City
(Pursuant to Section 3, Rule 63
of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court)

G R E E T I N G S.

Please take notice that the undersigned has requested the RTC-Makati City Br. 134 Clerk of Court to submit the foregoing Omnibus Motion for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon its receipt.

Orosa Blanco & Ureta Law Offices

Counsel for Petitioner

By:

MICHAEL G. URETA

[dovinyae]

Update lang po. My friend went to MMDA yesterday. First update, they only serve 450 persons per day. Sa madaling salita, another day wasted. Second update, they went back today to get duped into paying P30 for the clearance fee. Not yet sure if he will be cleared of any violation. Waiting for the result, he will need to come back after 1pm to get the results of the violation. Hay naku, kung pwede lang mag mura dito malamang nai-close itong thread.

Di mo pa alam kung ano violation mo magbabayad ka na ng clearance fee? P30 para sa isang taong galing pa ng Pampanga at di nakapasok sa trabaho dahil dito sa katiwaliang ito?

Grabe, dati I'm proud to be Pinoy. Ngayon? I'm embarassed to be one.

Pwede bang magpalit ng Nationality

[dovinyae]

Update lang po. My friend went to MMDA yesterday. First update, they only serve 450 persons per day. Sa madaling salita, another day wasted. Second update, they went back today to get duped into paying P30 for the clearance fee. Not yet sure if he will be cleared of any violation. Waiting for the result, he will need to come back after 1pm to get the results of the violation. Hay naku, kung pwede lang mag mura dito malamang nai-close itong thread.

Di mo pa alam kung ano violation mo magbabayad ka na ng clearance fee? P30 para sa isang taong galing pa ng Pampanga at di nakapasok sa trabaho dahil dito sa katiwaliang ito? Hindi ba dapat malaman mo muna violation mo then you decide if you want to pay for the clearance? Hirap kasi dating Metro Aid ginawang traffic enforcer.

Grabe, dati I'm proud to be Pinoy. Ngayon? I'm embarassed to be one.

Pwede bang magpalit ng Nationality

[gadzooks]

In the ongoing court case against the MMDA and LTO, that P30 clearance fee is also being challenged as illegal.

[Doc818]

Any updates?

Will be renewing my license tomorrow.

[SiRbossR]

hmm. the address listed on my license, my dad's and mom's are all provincial address. and we never had any problems renewing. why not try putting in provincial addresses?

[MoonbeamTURBO]

Apparently, this is still happening. My mom was renewing her license this morning and guess what, may violation daw siya! What the hell eh hindi nga siya na apprehend that time eh! April 2009 pa ang date ng violation. Disregarding traffic signs daw!? Wala nga ticket eh paano babayaran kung may violation man? Anong pwedeng gawin? Sorry nakakapambwisit lang.

[rna800]

I renewed my license the other day and I was really anxious after reading this thread for I might have a "hit that never happened." Thank God I didn't get a hit.

But I observed that yes, people really do get a "hit" and there were 2 sides of the coin that I saw. The first is some people, once the LTO personnel calls them and tell that they have a hit, they will just accept and scratch their heads. But there were 3 different women at the LTO renewal center in a mall that day who were really annoyed after hearing that they have a hit. But only one women really pursued in contesting. She's claiming that she knows the violation, which was swerving but it happened last 2010 and she has sent her payment for her fine via Metrobank. But the LTO personnel said she needs to call MMDA and settle it with them. She called the MMDA office right there but after she hangs up her phone, she said that MMDA needs her to present the receipt at the MMDA office. She even added that she was sick so going to Orense to settle it is truly a burden. After that she just left.

So based on what I saw, it is really possible that you will get a "hit" in their system which is either you have no knowledge about it or you know about it and paid for it but MMDA failed to record it and it will be very burdensome to settle it. Too bad if you don't have the receipt anymore since it happened way back, you don't have a choice but to pay again.

[dalandan]

two of my officemates renewed their DL recently, both turned out to have some pending MMDA violations dated April and June 2009.

[shadow]

That's why I said keep your violation receipt staple it to your car's original OR

[kotiko]

Anyone got any recent experiences? Unfortunately got a flag, hassle looks like I need to line up in MMDA.