Dyipni vs truck: 4 katao patay

The Regional Trial Court has directed prosecutor Rosendo Brillantes and three other litigants to explain why the case they filed against the City Traffic Operations Management should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court.

In an order, Regional Trial Court Branch 12 judge Estela Alma Singco said the petition for declaratory relief filed by Brillantes, Palace of Justice administrator Henry Espinosa, prosecutor’s office administrative officer Joel Pazculado, and a certain Rustom Lapeña does not comply with court rules.

The four sued for what they alleged to be questionable traffic rules. They also asked the court to issue a 30-day Temporary Restraining Order against the traffic group.

“The petitioners are hereby directed to show cause why their petition should not be dismissed for their failure to comply with Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court requiring a certification against forum shopping and for their failure to state and identify the statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation, which is the subject of this petition,” the order read.

The petitioners questioned what law regulates empowers CITOM to intercept and fine owners of multicabs with “unregistered” canopies. Aside from this, CITOM would also order the stenciling of the vehicle’s chassis at the driver’s expense. The entire process reportedly costs P300.

“They would not specify by what administrative law, by what status, by what legal authority they could physically prevent the motorists into proceeding to their destination as to comply with their vexatious process or be threatened with confiscation of the driver’s private property- his driver’s license,” the petition reads.

The petitioners are asking the court to resolve whether or not CITOM can prevent the passage of motorists who drive multicabs with a canopy and whether or not CITOM has the legal authority to force the motorists to comply with their orders right there and then.

They are also asking if there is lawful basis for “double registration” or “double stenciling” of the engine and the chassis with the P300 payment and if the traffic enforcers can be held liable for grave misconduct when they use direct and/or indirect force, threat or intimidation.  — Joeberth M. Ocao/BRP