Revocation of franchise on the third offense for tricycles with drivers who violate the contract of carriage drew public support based on a radio survey.
In a phone-in survey conducted by DyRD Inyong Alagad yesterday, listeners expressed disappointment on the attitude of most tricycle drivers as they support the city government’s move to revoke the franchise of any tricycle that would be reported for violations of its driver upon the third offense.
City Councilor Phillip Besas, chairperson of the Sangguniang Panlungsod Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities, recommended the suspension of tricycle drivers who accumulated a number of traffic violations.
This revived the discussions- -both in social media and public affairs radio programs- -on the attitudes of roving tricycle drivers in the city.
In yesterday’s radio survey, most of those who supported the plan of the city government to impose the penalty of revocation of the franchise of tricycles if the driver accumulates several traffic violations and breach of contract of carriage.
Refusing to convey passengers and overcharging were the most mentioned violations.
One of the callers narrated that there was a time when a tricycle driver asked her to pay P100 from Alturas to Lindaville.
A number of callers mentioned that in several instances, the tricycle drivers would refuse them a ride if they were alone or charge them an exorbitant fare if they have to proceed.
A few callers, however, said they find it too much a penalty to revoke the franchise, pointing out that while it is the driver who committed the violations, it is the operator who would bear the consequence.
Other callers consider it the obligation of the tricycle operator to choose a driver who can carry out the responsibility of implementing the services offered to the riding public.
The callers, however, agreed that city officials should have political will to implement the law and be not afraid of the tendency to lose votes from those who would suffer the penalty for the violations.
They said the city officials should show that the welfare of the general public prevails.
It had been an established principle that “once a public utility [vehicle] stops, it is in effect making a continuous offer to [the] riders” and that “the passenger is deemed to be accepting the offer if he is already attempting to board the conveyances and the contract of carriage is perfected from that point”.
One who operates a tricycle-for-hire is a common carrier, being the “business of carrying or transporting passengers…offering his services to the public” for a fee or even for free.
Even in a boundary system, the owner of the tricycle is still liable for the consequences of the acts of the driver even if the driver is only a lessee.
“The most basic obligation of the common carrier”, such as tricycles-for-hire, “is to transport the passenger safely to the agreed destination”.
One of the listeners, a legal luminary in Bohol, sent a text message to DyRD Txtklamo Center, saying that extraordinary diligence is required from the driver in conveying his passengers.
The driver, being entrusted of the implementation of the contract of carriage, has the duties “to accept passengers without discrimination, to seasonably bring the passenger to the destination, and to exercise extraordinary diligence in the performance of its duties”, as provided in the Transportation and Public Utilities Law.