Legal Remedy for Violating the JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2014-01 - "Colorom"

Under the existing rules and regulation of LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING & REGULATORY BOARD what are your legal remedy if you get apprehended in Violation of JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 2014-01 - REVISED SCHEDULE OF FINES AND PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF LAWS, RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE or COLUROM VIOLATION.

According to Memorandum Circular 2007 - 038 “CREATING THE COMPOSITIONS OF THE “FRANCHISE ENFORCEMENT AND ADJUDICATIONS SERVICES” DEFINING THE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR THE OPERATING PROCEDURE IN THE ENFORCEMENT, APPREHENSION, ADJUDICATION OF VIOLATORS”

Under Section II paragraph IIA The Deputize or designated enforcer upon apprehension of any public land transport utility with or without a Certificate of public Convenience shall inform the concerned driver/operator of the vehicle apprehended of particular violation committed forthwith issue INVESTIGATION REPORT SUMMONS (IRS) and SHOW CAUSE ORDER and given unextendible 5 days to appear and file VERIFIED ANSWER or VERIFIED EXPLANATION why the subject vehicle are not in violation stated on the INVESTIGATION REPORT SUMMONS (IRS).

Office of the Public Transport Adjudication Services shall act in accordance Part II, Rule 10 (Procedure in Complaints) Rules of Practice and Procedure in LTFRB. Public Transport Adjudication Services Chief Shall Act as the Hearing Officers and has the Power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. PTAS is not bound by the technical rules of evidence and may proceed rule based on the substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence, quantum of proof in administrative cases. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.

In two recent decisions of the Supreme Court, seafarers were granted disability benefits as they were able to prove with substantial evidence that their illnesses are work-related.

In Jay Licayan vs. Seacrest Maritime Management, Inc. Clipper Fleet Management and/or Redentor Anaya, the Court held compensable seafarer’s illness of panic disorder. The Court reasoned that it was duly proven that aside from seafarer’s daily routine as Fitter, he would perform and install the water and oil separation fixtures during the voyage which was normally done when the vessel was on dry dock. He would also install the steel platforms which serve as the path walk of the crew when the vessel is loaded with chemicals.

The extraordinary difficult job of the seafarer unduly put him under great pressure resulting to emotional disorder. The seafarer likewise presented the opinion of his personal doctor which categorically stated that his illness is work-related as compared to the opinion of the company-designated doctor that the cause of the illness is unknown and genetics may be a factor. The Court likewise held that the opinion of the doctor was not able to overcome the presumption in favor of the seafarer that the illness is work-related.